Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Postal Services

James Gray: If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: The operation of postal services in Scotland is a matter for the board of Consignia, subject to the conditions determined by the postal regulator, Postcomm.

James Gray: Perhaps I can be the first to welcome the Under-Secretary to her new post among the matriarchy on the Government Front Bench. She represents the town of Stirling, as her constituency name indicates, but she also represents my home town of Dunblane; it is a shame that the constituency name does not show that. I am sure that she will do a fine job in her new post.
	Since the Labour party came to power, a total of 135 post offices have closed across Scotland. If the Government continue to do what they have done up until recently—paying pensions directly into people's bank accounts—that rate of closure will continue apace. Before the Under-Secretary says that that is not part of her plans, will she explain why the Ministry of Defence has recently written to all MOD pensioners in Scotland to tell them that their pensions will be paid compulsorily into bank accounts and that they may not draw them from post offices? Does she not fear that that will lead to a further loss of post offices across Scotland?

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was worried that when I rose to speak today the House would empty, given that I normally move the Adjournment.
	I crave the indulgence of the House for a second to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for the generosity of his comments during the transfer of his portfolio, particularly when he mentioned making room for younger Members. I was mightily impressed by that.
	I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for his comments, which are particularly welcome because of his strong family connections with the ecclesiastical city, not town, as he said, of Dunblane—he will be in trouble when he goes home. I have known the hon. Gentleman for some time, and we attended the same university, but in spite of the fact that I kent his faither, so to speak, I have to say that his question is disingenuous. He talks to us about post office closures, but we were the first party specifically to protect rural post offices until 2006. He comments on the number of closures over the last few months, but that number has fallen, whereas under the Conservative Government some 3,500 post offices closed across the UK. I do not think that the Conservatives have a leg to stand on.
	The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are ongoing discussions about the collection of pensions and the move towards direct payment of pensions through post offices. That proposal will enhance the services of post offices and enhance the services given to customers.

Russell Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post.
	The burning issue at this time is the universal service, especially in rural areas. While Postcomm's backtracking must be welcomed, I regret to say that I am not convinced that it will be sufficient to ensure that we have a continued universal service delivery right into the heart of rural areas. Will my hon. Friend assure me that if it looks as though that is not to continue, she and those at the sharp end will step in to ensure that we continue to receive the service to which we have all grown used, need and deserve?

Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I welcome the change from Postcomm and a great deal of credit for that has to go to hon. Members across the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who met Postcomm and the trade unions.
	I share the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) about the importance of the universal delivery and I was pleased that, for the first time ever, the Government enshrined within legislation that there will be a universal delivery across the UK at an affordable tariff.
	Consignia's licence specifically states that it has to honour that universal service delivery. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State and I will ensure that rural communities, and all communities across Scotland, continue to receive a universal service. Rowland Hill would have been proud of us.

John Thurso: I, too, congratulate the Minister, and I welcome her to her post on behalf of my party. I also associate myself with her remarks concerning her predecessor.
	In respect of the universal service obligation, notwithstanding the welcome reversal by Consignia, is not she aware that great concern was caused in rural communities by the threat of the withdrawal of that service in certain areas? Will she ensure, as far as possible, that the current level of services enjoyed in remote areas is maintained, and at an affordable cost, and that the Postcomm privatisation proposals do not lead to an inexorable abandonment of those services in those important communities?

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments.
	Postwatch has identified some of the exclusions that are currently in place. To avoid spreading panic across rural Scotland, let me identify clearly what those exclusions relate to, which is normally relative inaccessibility by road—for example, difficulties with transport; non- existence of daily ferry services; and second home owners requesting a non-delivery. I am sure that many people have holiday homes in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world and that many addresses are often unoccupied. The exclusions relate only to specific circumstances.
	The Government are committed to the universal service obligation, which has been written into Consignia's licence and confirmed in legislation this year. We are committed to honouring it and ensuring that individuals and communities throughout the country get the daily delivery wherever possible. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comment about ensuring that rural communities feel secure in the knowledge that they will continue to get that daily service.

Tony Worthington: As one who shared a Capstan Full Strength office with her father for several years, I join in the expressions of pleasure at my hon. Friend's appointment.
	The performance and innovation unit's report published some time ago contained some good ideas on how extra business could be brought to the Post Office. The idea of its acting as a kind of general practitioner, offering advice and services, was particularly good. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to do all that she can to promote those ideas, because they could be very valuable but do not seem to have been put into effect so far?

Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. In the interests of health, I should say that Capstan Full Strength do not do one any good, and my father paid a penalty for smoking them over a long period. I know that he is sitting on a cloud somewhere laughing at that comment.
	On the one-stop shop, there have been pilots in Leicestershire and Rutland, which are currently being evaluated. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would have been foolish to push ahead with that development before seeing how it operated. We hope that the results will be out soon and we can start to make progress and ensure that the Post Office offers an enhanced service for both rural and urban communities throughout Scotland.

Peter Duncan: I, too, congratulate the new Minister on her elevation, and I hope that she will add to the honourable tradition of Members for Stirling in ministerial office. She talked about rural communities feeling secure about their postal services. Perhaps she has not yet had time to read of the petition signed by 500 residents of Newton Stewart expressing concern about their postal services. Has she made any assessment of the effect of closing post offices in rural communities? Does it accord with the remarks of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that there would be "severe adverse consequences"? Will the Government's half-baked reforms and the consequent suppression of competition continue to centralise postal services in Scotland?

Anne McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I trust that he is talking about Lord Ewing when he refers to predecessors in the Scotland Office. I assure him that I am not seeking to emulate the fate of my immediate predecessor in the constituency.
	It is incumbent on Members of Parliament, regardless of their political persuasion, not to scaremonger about what is happening to the rural post office network, which has been protected by the Government up to 2006. We see a lot of crocodile tears from the Opposition. For 18 years, they walked away from rural communities when shops and banks withdrew from them, and it was this Government who piled in with support to protect rural post offices.

Oil and Gas Taxation

Alex Salmond: What consultations she had with ministerial colleagues on the Budget changes to North sea oil and gas taxation.

Helen Liddell: I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters, including fiscal matters, affecting Scottish interests. Budget decisions are of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Alex Salmond: I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on reaching her new position, and I also congratulate Ireland on reaching the next stage of the World cup finals.
	Is it not true that the Secretary of State was not consulted on tax changes in respect of the North sea, and nor was Pilot, the industry consultation body? Is it not clear that even if a fraction of the 50,000 job losses estimated by the industry are indeed lost, the constituency of every Member in the Chamber will be affected? We now know that the Clair field will offer no fabrication aspect for Scottish yards, and the loss of 800 BP contractor jobs was announced last week. With that in mind, does the Secretary of State accept that oil workers are very anxious about their current job prospects? I know that she is a Labour politician and has to defend the proposals, but she is also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

Alex Salmond: Representations to the Chancellor—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time to sit down.

Helen Liddell: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The decisions that the Chancellor has taken in relation to North sea fiscal policy should not have come as any great surprise. In 1998, when the oil and gas industry taskforce was being established, the Chancellor undertook a review of the North sea fiscal regime, and pointed out that he was considering petroleum revenue tax and a supplement on corporation tax. When the oil price dropped to $10 a barrel, the Chancellor made it clear that for the duration of the Parliament he would not take any action in respect of the North sea fiscal regime, but would keep the matter under review.
	As part of that review, the Treasury was represented on the oil and gas industry taskforce and on Pilot, which I chaired for about two years, by no less a figure than Sir Steve Robson. At that time, very few Treasury officials were ranked higher than him. It was the discussions within Pilot that led us to reach a decision on the North sea fiscal regime, which is designed to help companies that are investing in the North sea.
	Predictably, the hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. We have introduced first-year allowances for the North sea of 100 per cent., which means that for those—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Connarty.

Michael Connarty: I was enjoying that answer because it was so comprehensive.

Jim Sheridan: It was better than the question.

Michael Connarty: Yes, it certainly was.
	As secretary of the offshore oil and gas industry all-party group, I should point out to my right hon. Friend that the industry is concerned about the structure of the tax. We do not know whether the 10 per cent. increase will be permanent, or vary if the price of oil falls to the low levels of the previous Parliament. However, in general—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a supplementary question, and the Secretary of State will try to answer it.

Helen Liddell: This is a complicated issue and I apologise for spending time on it. Naturally, the industry does not like paying additional taxation, but it has a much higher rate of return—some 34.3 per cent., compared with 11.2 per cent.—than all other non-financial companies. The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget statement that he is trying to bring about stability in the North sea fiscal regime. Indeed, the taxation changes are designed to ensure that companies that invest in the North sea pay less tax, and that those that do not do so pay more. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I find that very attractive. I find equally attractive the fact that the money is being used to ensure better health care in Scotland—something that my party has argued for, and delivered, for some time.

Jacqui Lait: I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary, and my commiserations to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I was glad that I was able to congratulate him on his forthcoming wedding anniversary in good time. I also welcome the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to what is possibly one of his last appearances at Question Time before he moves to Holyrood.
	The Secretary of State suggested that she was aware that the taxation of oil companies was likely to go up in the Budget. What representations did she make to the Chancellor on behalf of the 18,000 people who might lose their jobs in Scotland because of the effect of the tax changes?

Helen Liddell: One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position that the Tories just make numbers up, and that is what the hon. Lady is doing and what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just done. The taxation regime is balanced. It includes the 10 per cent. supplementary charge on corporation tax that takes into account the profitability of the UK continental shelf companies. It includes a first-year allowance of 100 per cent., which means that marginal fields will pay less tax, and it also commits to setting a date for the abolition of royalties.
	It is a sensible procedure, aimed—I remind the hon. Lady—at securing resources for increased expenditure on health and education in Scotland. That is what the Scottish people want, and it is fair that profitable oil companies should make their contribution to the health and well-being of the people of Scotland in return for the exploration and exploitation of a natural resource.

Jacqui Lait: The 18,000 people who may lose their jobs will not necessarily find that their health improves. Will the right hon. Lady leave behind her previous role as energy Minister and concentrate on her role as Secretary of State for Scotland? In all her answers, she has not made it clear whether she represented the views of Scotland to the Chancellor or, as usual, she was the Cabinet's voice in Scotland. Will she clarify that point?

Helen Liddell: I am Scotland's voice in the United Kingdom Cabinet, which has more Scots in it than the Scottish National party has sitting on the Benches. The Budget is in the best interests of Scotland, because Scotland's health record is one of the worst in Europe. We have to improve the health of the people of Scotland as well as improve the economy, and that is the reasoning behind the Chancellor's sensible Budget.
	We discussed with the oil industry over three or four years the difficulties that the industry is facing because of the maturity of the UK continental shelf. That is something that the previous Conservative Government never took it into their head to do. We have brought unemployment in Scotland down to its lowest level for a generation. More people are now in employment than have been for 40 years and that is a record of which I am proud and, I believe, the people of Scotland are proud.

David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the record profits made by multinational oil corporations such as Shell and BP? Is not the Chancellor right to tax them appropriately? However, does my right hon. Friend share the disappointment felt in the highlands, and in Scotland as a whole, about the loss of the BP Clair platform to Norway? Will she join my campaign to investigate the details of the Norwegian bid?

Helen Liddell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign to secure the Clair jacket, for Nigg in particular. The decision was a commercial one, but I hope that greater concentration will now be put on getting subcontract work from the Clair jacket to ensure continuation of supply employment in Scotland.
	My hon. Friend is right about the taxation. I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) advocate from the Opposition Front Bench that taxation should not be increased to provide better health care in Scotland, but I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan do so. His colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—which he is soon to rejoin, we hear—say that they want increased public expenditure in Scotland. He says that he does not want—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The views of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) are nothing to do with the right hon. Lady. She is here to answer for the Executive, and she should do so.

Devolution

Angus Robertson: What representations she has made to each Government Department concerning their provision of information on Council of the European Union meetings to the Scottish Parliament and Executive.

Helen Liddell: The provision of information to the Scottish Parliament is a matter for the Scottish Executive, who are involved in all relevant discussions in relation to European matters.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. At a time when the Government are stressing the importance of accountability, democracy and subsidiarity in European Union matters, does she agree that Scotland has a democratic deficit in that area, especially when one considers the conclusions of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee that was published this morning? The report states:
	"It is a matter of concern that not all information about EU discussions relevant to the devolved administrations and legislatures has been forwarded to them by UK Departments."
	Does the Secretary of State agree that that is not acceptable and that it should change? What will she do about it?

Helen Liddell: The Government will respond to the report in due course. However, I attended the meeting this morning of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, with the Deputy First Minister. I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive regarding any unhappiness about the availability of information on European Councils. The hon. Gentleman seeks always to push Scotland to the periphery of Europe. It is my job, and the Government's job, to ensure that Scotland remains in the mainstream in Europe.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998.

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998.

Tam Dalyell: What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998 relating to human rights.

Lynda Clark: Since 30 April, 33 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have involved a variety of matters, mostly concerning the right to a fair trial under the European convention on human rights.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on retaining her post. As a result, we can continue to hold her to account at these monthly Question Times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow leader of the House, is present, and I am sure that he will support me in asking whether she has made progress with the modernisation plans that would allow an extension of this Question Time. At present, we have the minimal period of five minutes. An extension would help to make the Minister totally accountable to the House.

Lynda Clark: I am delighted that there is still support for further time to question me. That sits rather uneasily with those Opposition Members who feel that there is no role for the Advocate-General. However, the determination of the length of Question Time is a matter for the House, not for me.

Annabelle Ewing: What has been, or is likely to be, the Advocate-General's involvement in the ongoing saga of the Megrahi case? Yesterday, Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa, called for the matter to be referred to the Privy Council. Does the Advocate- General have no role in the matter, or is her role secret?

Lynda Clark: My role is not a secret at all. The Scotland Act 1998 makes it plain that I have no role in connection with prosecution matters, which are entirely for the Lord Advocate. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has other relationships to deal with. If further legal proceedings were begun, it is possible that a devolution issue might arise. If so, that would be intimated to me in the normal course of events, under the rules of the Scotland Act.

Tam Dalyell: Given that President Mandela asked that there should be an appeal, will my hon. Friend the Minister use her good offices with the Crown Office to accede to the request from Mr. Eddie McKechnie, Megrahi's lawyer, that a moratorium be placed on the handing over of crucial artefacts? What is the hurry about handing them over, after 13 years? What does the Crown Office have to hide in the matter?

Lynda Clark: The Lord Advocate, and through him the Crown Office, are responsible to the Scottish Parliament and to the courts. There is no role for me in relation to the way in which the Lord Advocate exercises discretion. If my hon. Friend wishes to make representations to the Lord Advocate, that option is open to him.

Eric Joyce: With regard to devolution issues, have any cases been referred to my hon. and learned Friend that allege delay in criminal proceedings? Will she relate that to possible breaches of the ECHR?

Lynda Clark: I have indeed had many intimations about delay in criminal proceedings as alleged contraventions of the ECHR. The number of such cases runs into the hundreds, about 50 per cent. of which raise those issues. Because of the number of cases intimated to me, for a number of days recently I was involved in a test case, at which I appeared personally to deal with those legal issues. The Appeal Court has given a decision in that case, and the representations that I made were successful. However, a further appeal to the Privy Council is to be mounted, and I shall be dealing with that in due course.

Value for Money

Alistair Carmichael: What measures she is taking to improve value for money in her Department.

Lynda Clark: As the first Advocate-General for Scotland, I have been keen to ensure the most efficient use of public money, and I think that this has been achieved. My office provides a range of legal services to Government Departments, including litigation, advisory work, preparation of legislation and formal Law Officer opinions, and it does all that with 19 lawyers plus support staff. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my officials and I give very good value for money.

Alistair Carmichael: Would the Advocate-General care to comment on reports that came to my office recently that she had a full set of session cases transported from Edinburgh to London simply for the purpose of a photo opportunity and that it was then repacked and sent back to Edinburgh? Is that the case and, if so, does she consider that to be value for money?

Lynda Clark: It certainly was not a photo opportunity involving me. I have no knowledge of that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Legal Advice

Meg Munn: What steps the Department is taking to extend legal advice for the socially excluded.

Rosie Winterton: Lack of access to reliable legal advice can be a major factor in creating and maintaining social exclusion. Community legal service partnerships are therefore being established in order to plan and co-ordinate local legal services more effectively. The work of the community legal service partnerships is making a real difference to communities across England and Wales, particularly to those living in some of the most deprived areas.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the Government's approach. Does she agree that it is vital that legal advice is available to people such as my constituent from Gleadless, who came to my surgery on Saturday, so that she can challenge the loan company which says that she now owes £22,000 on a loan of £7,000 taken out 11 years ago?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is quite right that the spiral of financial difficulties in which people sometimes find themselves could be avoided if they had proper debt counselling at an early stage, particularly to stop them falling into the hands of loan sharks, as her constituent obviously has done. The community legal service in Sheffield has received Government money to improve access to advice and information, particularly aimed at socially excluded communities and individuals. That includes making sure that people know exactly where they can obtain advice about the kind of debt problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. I hope that that will improve the situation in her area.

David Heath: Will the hon. Lady send a warm welcome to the Department to her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend may well have done that already.

David Heath: Indeed.
	Does the increase in the number of people seeking the help of law centres and citizens advice bureaux suggest that there are still extensive barriers to people who require legal representation? Whatever the criticism—possibly justifiable—of the so-called fat cat lawyers in the City, many high street solicitors are seeking to extend a range of services to clients on modest incomes. Should we not consider how to ensure that the smaller lawyers' firms can continue practising in our smaller towns?

Rosie Winterton: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's welcome to my hon. Friend. He is right that it is important to keep smaller firms involved within the community legal service partnerships, and there have been some good examples of that. In terms of ensuring proper access, we have almost achieved 100 per cent. coverage of legal service partnerships throughout the country, which is way ahead of schedule. That is an important means of ensuring that people have access to legal advice, particularly those who may have been excluded in the past. I certainly agree that it is important to ensure that private sector solicitors are involved in those partnerships with us.

Paul Clark: I note what my hon. Friend said about access to the right information, which is fundamentally important in ensuring that people who seek help receive reliable information. May I draw her attention to the work of the Medway community legal services partnership, which has developed in a number of ways? I draw her attention especially to the document in my hand—the referral handbook—which is useful to us all, not only Members of Parliament, but other bodies who help people seeking advice, such as the person to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) referred. The document has been developed by the Medway CLS to identify the available services and the clientele that they might serve. It shows where legal services are available through the CLS and where the quality mark exists. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary look at the document as an example of best practice?

Rosie Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend has been extremely supportive of his local CLS partnership. It is important that Members of Parliament show such support, as it often helps to make the partnerships successful. The booklet to which he refers is an excellent example of good practice by a partnership. I certainly agree that it is important that we ensure that other partnerships are aware of such good practice. One of the ways that my Department is considering assisting that process is by funding innovative projects throughout the country, especially through the partnership innovation bids. My hon. Friend might like to draw the attention of his partnership to that fund.

Data Protection Act

Graham Brady: What representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplaincy.

Yvette Cooper: Five hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplains. The hospital chaplaincies council of the Church of England will shortly meet officials in my Department.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Minister to her new position. Does she agree that hospital chaplaincy provides a vital service to many thousands of people who are in severe need of help and support? Does she share my concern that an over-zealous interpretation of the Data Protection Act is standing in the way of the work of hospital chaplains? Will she undertake to consider whether changes to the legislation are necessary in order to allow chaplaincies to carry out their functions properly?

Yvette Cooper: I agree that hospital chaplains can provide a vital service of spiritual support and care to many people in hospitals who want it. It is important that patients who want that support should be able to get it.
	The Data Protection Act does not prevent hospitals from passing on information about a patient's religion, but it states that they can do so only with the patient's consent or, if the patient is unable to give that consent, if it is in their vital interest. Consent is an important principle and we need to take it seriously in those circumstances. It is possible for hospitals to seek consent when they collect information, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to ensure that the practical issues are properly addressed, so that hospital chaplains can give the care that people so often want. That is why the issue has been raised with the patient information advisory group. I understand that it will be advising the Department of Health on a new code of practice for the NHS on consent and confidentiality. The points that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of his constituents will certainly be taken into account.

William Cash: May I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities? I got on extremely well with her predecessor and I trust that we shall be able to maintain that, even with all the necessary opposition that we shall bring to bear on her Department.
	Will the hon. Lady tell the House what action she will take in the light of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that Church ministries and their pastors in hospitals are unable to function properly because of the Data Protection Act 1998? Hospital patients often need their advice urgently and emotionally. The measure is an example of the triumph of technicality over compassion. Does the Minister agree that the Act in its present form, and in relation to this case, denies our citizens and constituents their fundamental and human rights, and that that cannot simply be dismissed as over-interpretation of the Act? May we please have clear guidelines, issued by her Department—not just consultation—so that the law will protect people, rather than detract from their quality of life?

Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words. I, too, look forward to working with him. To understand what issues he was interested in and might be keen to raise, I inquired what parliamentary questions he had tabled previously. I drew a blank, however, as he has not asked any written parliamentary questions of the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1997, although he has asked many questions of the Foreign Office.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question, I take very seriously the points raised, as I have made clear, and the need to ensure that hospital chaplains provide the service that patients want. Equally, however, it is important that we recognise the principle of consent. It is possible for hospitals to collect information and, at the same time, to ask for consent. It is also important to address the practical issues, to make sure that the rules are implemented properly. That is why the Department of Health is drawing up a new code of practice for the NHS, and why the Department of Health's patient empowerment team is working with the multi-faith joint national working group on new guidance for hospital chaplains. We take these issues seriously. It is also important, however, that we recognise and respect the important principles behind the Data Protection Act.

Enduring Powers of Attorney

Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement about the fees for enduring powers of attorney.

Rosie Winterton: In its report on the Public Trust Office, the Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of fees paid by some clients subsidising different services used by others, and of the pattern of cost recovery. Fees for Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 cases were changed on 17 April 2002. The new fees mean that EPA clients no longer receive subsidy from users of other services provided by the Public Guardianship Office, and that fees are set to recover costs. Improved remissions guidelines make sure that less well-off EPA clients pay less than before the fees were changed, or pay nothing at all.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she give an undertaking to the House to publish a yearly total of the number of EPA registrations, to enable us to see whether the recent trebling of the registration fee is acting as a disincentive to vulnerable people?

Rosie Winterton: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, so far, the number of registrations has not altered since the fees were changed. About 11,000 EPAs were registered last year, and, so far, the figures seem to be similar. I shall investigate whether the figures can be published. I am not sure whether they are published in the annual report, and I shall consider whether we can do that.

John Burnett: On 3 April this year, in reply to my written question, the Minister made it clear that
	"No date has yet been set for the introduction of changes to the fees charged by the Public Guardianship Office"—[Official Report, 3 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 1036W.]
	It has become clear that that reply was not correct. The House therefore deserves an explanation for the misleading reply, and I wait to hear the Minister's explanation.

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I became aware of the situation, and he is right that by the time the written answer to which he refers appeared in Hansard, it was out of date. I discovered only yesterday what had happened, and I take this opportunity—I spoke to the hon. Gentleman earlier about this—to say that I am extremely sorry for unintentionally misleading the House. I know that my noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland has acknowledged the error in another place. Although my written answer was formulated in good faith, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am sorry for the error, and I welcome the opportunity today to correct the matter for the parliamentary record.

Courthouse (Colchester)

Bob Russell: When work will start on a new courthouse in Colchester.

Yvette Cooper: I understand that work on building the new courthouse in Colchester is planned to start in early 2005.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that the additional delay in building the new courthouse has been caused by the nonsense of putting all the court services in Essex in the same private finance initiative basket, and by problems elsewhere in Essex?

Yvette Cooper: The magistrates courts committee has to decide about the programme of work and investment in courts in Colchester and the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman will know that Thurrock borough council has appealed against the MCC decision to close the Grays courthouse. That decision and an appeal against it need to be considered. Ministers have to take account of all the factors raised by both the council and the MCC. However, it is important that the programme of work continues and, as I said, we expect work on the new courthouse to start in 2005.

PRIVY COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

European Union

Teddy Taylor: If he will bring forward proposals for improving the procedures for discussing EU legislation and for considering EU expenditure in the House.

Ben Bradshaw: The House has already implemented almost all the Modernisation Committee's recommendations of the last Parliament on this issue and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider carefully today's report from the European Scrutiny Committee. It and its sister Committee in the other place play an important role in examining EU legislation and expenditure.

Teddy Taylor: Does it not worry the Minister that the European Union, to which we send more than £1 million every hour, has become such an uncontrolled centre of graft and corruption? The most recent examples of that are the awarding of grants for more than twice the number of sheep and goats that actually exist in Italy, and a massive grant to a gentleman from Essex, although not from Southend, to help to provide prostitutes in Hungary with guidance—money that he has spent on buying a new house and two new cars.
	In case the Minister thinks that the answer might be the Court of Auditors, does he accept that the court finds those practices just as disgusting as I and most hon. Members do, and has declined to approve the EU's accounts for six years? Is there not a case for someone to supervise expenditure?

Ben Bradshaw: The whole House will agree that the common agricultural policy needs radical reform. However, if the hon. Gentleman is alleging criminal activity, he should report that to the police. As I said, we in this House and Members of the other place have two effective Committees. I have served on one of them, and they do an excellent job of scrutinising the expenditure and decision making in Brussels that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Chris Bryant: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he think that there is further room for exploring how we can subject the decisions of the European Central Bank to greater scrutiny, especially as we hope that those might have more direct relevance to the economy of the United Kingdom in a year's time? Has he received specific advice from Mr. Rupert Murdoch about how we might examine legislation on European matters?

Ben Bradshaw: In the few days that I have been in my present job, I have not had time to receive such advice. I agree, however, that the European Central Bank has much to learn from the workings of our central bank, which have been extremely successful.

Michael Fabricant: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. He was doing a good job in his previous post and I cannot understand why he was moved.
	How can the Minister say that there will be fiscal controls over expenditure in the EU, when his former colleague, the Minister for Europe, told me in parliamentary written answers that the Government have conducted no analysis whatever of the total costs or total benefits of this country belonging to the EU, and have no intention of doing so in the future?

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot speak for my colleague in the Foreign Office, but colleagues of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will have an opportunity to scrutinise my right hon. Friend on this very subject when he appears before the House of Lords European Union Select Committee on 9 July.

People's Peers

Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the selection process for people's peers; and what plans he has to amend the forthcoming roadshow.

Robin Cook: The Appointments Commission has brought new transparency to the selection of independent peers. As part of that process of transparency, there was a presentation in a number of cities before the first round of appointments. I am not aware of any plans that the commission may have for a forthcoming roadshow. The whole point of the Appointments Commission is to be an independent body, and Ministers are not involved in the way in which it conducts its business.

Paul Flynn: The reason offered last time for the selection of seven knights and three professors was that if a waitress or a bus conductor had been selected, they would not have had the confidence to address the House of Lords. One in three of the new peers have spoken only once, in their maiden speech. As a former bus conductor married to a former waitress, may I assure the House that people from humble professions are likely to speak more often than the professors and the knights, and possibly to greater effect?

Robin Cook: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says about what he calls humble professions, and I fully agree that the evidence in this Chamber is that the Members from those professions speak at great length and at as much length as any other Member. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend does justice to those who were appointed. They did, after all, include the chief executive of Centre Point, a former chief executive of Childline and a trustee of Oxfam, and those personalities would not necessarily have been appointed under the previous arrangement. The Government deserve credit for having given up the right of patronage so that independent peers could be appointed, and for ensuring that they are appointed independently of Government.

Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that he and the Government will not seek to replicate that system of appointment if and when the second Chamber is revised and reformed? Is he aware of the grilling that was given to the Chairman of the Appointments Commission on 24 January by the Public Administration Committee, during which he admitted not only that a number of those appointed as so-called people's peers had never spoken, but that some of them never even turned up?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes!

Robin Cook: I notice that my hon. Friend supports that point.
	On the question of the future after reform, the Appointments Commission will have to be placed on a statutory basis as part of any law reforming the second Chamber, and it will be for the House to resolve, in the course of that, what basis it wants the Commission to have. I say to the House, however, that Members appointed under this system have played a full part in debates on immigration, child poverty and equal opportunity in public services such as education. Their contribution to the House is as good as the average contribution of the Cross Benchers in the second Chamber.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Leader of the House, when he leaves the Chamber, ask his assistants to dig out the Hansard record of the first Prime Minister's Question Time after the general election? He will see there that I drew the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that Sir Herman Ouseley was part of the selection process for the chairman of that wonderful, independent and transparent selection panel, but he was also an applicant, and by enormous coincidence he was selected out of the 3,000 people who applied to be a people's peer.
	The House, the press and everyone else, including, I suspect, the Prime Minister, would be acutely embarrassed by a wholly irregular, wholly non-transparent and, I dare say, rather corrupt system of selecting Members of Parliament. No one should come here and make the nonsensical suggestion that the selection process was a good thing; it was rotten to the core, and we ought to be prepared to say in this House that we will never repeat that rotten scenario.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend was never one to mince his words, and he has spoken with the candour that earned him a place in this Chamber. He expresses a view for which I have much sympathy—we require root and branch reform of the second Chamber. The Government have acted to make sure that Parliament is in the driving seat and can decide the route of that reform.
	I point out to my hon. Friend that Sir Herman Ouseley was very active in race relations, he has strong expertise and he is part of the process by which we have ensured that, in our appointments to the House of Lords, there is a higher proportion of ethnic minorities than we have ever yet secured in this, the first Chamber of Parliament. Sir Herman Ouseley has certainly earned his place by his contribution to race relations.

Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that the scheme was sold to the country on the basis that ordinary people from everyday walks of life would be elevated, independently, to the upper House? Is it not also a fact that the sort of people who have been put there as people's peers under the scheme are simply those who would normally be put there under the usual category of Labour party cronies?

Robin Cook: I have no evidence that the chief executive of Centre Point or the former chief executive of Childline are, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, Labour cronies. They earned their appointment by their contribution to British society and to the voluntary service; I should have thought that he would respect that.
	The House has to make up its mind. If we want an independent process of appointment, we cannot then invite the Government to be responsible for those who are appointed. We decided that an Appointments Commission should handle the matter independently. It has done so and I have no grounds for criticising it, but there is no point in blaming the Government for what emerges from an independent process.

David Winnick: May I make a constructive suggestion? In view of the newspaper stories, accurate or otherwise, that Mick Jagger may be knighted, might it be possible to make Mr. Jagger one of the people's peers—if only for his outstanding performances, which are an encouragement to all of us of a certain age?

Robin Cook: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion, which I suspect has done nothing to dampen speculation—for which there is, as far as I am aware, no basis—that Mick Jagger is about to be knighted and may be put in the House of Lords.

Electronic Equipment (Standing Committees)

Michael Jack: What proposals he will make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the matter of the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees of the House.

Robin Cook: The Modernisation Committee currently has a heavy programme, but I am aware of concerns about the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees and will keep them in mind for the future, while bearing in mind also the clearly expressed views of the Chairmen's Panel.

Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bearing the matter in mind for future work by the Modernisation Committee. Currently, the rules are unclear about what electronic equipment may or may not be brought into a Standing Committee. On the other hand, Ministers mention websites and refer hon. Members to them, even though the rules mean that there is no way that we can use modern electronic equipment to communicate with the outside world from a Committee Room. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to sort the matter out. The House has invested heavily in information technology, and we should be able to use portable computers in Committee to help us to hold the Executive to account.

Robin Cook: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. He has raised the issue before during oral questions, and it is one that the Modernisation Committee must address when it has time. However, I put it to him that there is not only one simple conclusion or one simple set of arguments. The members of the Chairmen's Panel have considered the issue on several occasions and they are reluctant to admit portable laptops and other electronic equipment to Committee proceedings, for the simple reason that once they have been introduced it is not possible to be sure that they are being used to further an interest in those proceedings, rather than an interest in other things going on in the world, such as English football and the World cup.

Kevin Brennan: I hesitate to mention the word e-mail because I know that it is not popular these days, but should we not try to emulate bodies such as the National Assembly for Wales—

Eric Forth: No.

Kevin Brennan: In the Assembly and the other new devolved bodies, that sort of technology is freely available to Members in meetings, so that they can check statistics and facts and communicate with the outside world. Incidentally, both the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and I attended the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill this morning; no one there was seeking England football team results, but a number of text messages relating to the Ireland football team were passed around.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend's last sentence confirms the point that I made earlier. I am all in favour of our using e-mail when it can speed up a process, and I hope that the forthcoming report of the Procedure Committee will open the way to our using e-mail in the tabling of questions. That will enable those hon. Members who wish to use modern communications to do so, and leave the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others who do not wish to do so entirely free to use a pencil and yellow paper.

Oral Parliamentary Questions

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will bring forward proposals to improve the effectiveness of the system of oral parliamentary questions.

Ben Bradshaw: The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into parliamentary questions. I am sure that the House looks forward with interest to its recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear to that Committee that he would like to make oral questions more topical.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the more the House does to make Question Time a more effective way of scrutinising Government, the better for democracy and the reputation of the House? Does he also agree that one of the problems with the system of oral questions is that the notice requirement makes it difficult to raise topical issues, and it is difficult to deal with issues in depth? May I invite him and our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make representations to that effect to the Modernisation Committee, so that it can make proposals for change as soon as possible?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right; there is a widespread feeling in the House that we could make oral questions a lot more topical and relevant. A number of useful and interesting ideas are being discussed, as he said, including shortening the tabling period; electronic tabling, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said; adopting topical questions, as has been done in the House of Lords; and having fewer questions, so that those which we discuss can be discussed in much greater depth.

Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister indicated, the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, is likely to produce a report on parliamentary questions in the next fortnight, and some of its recommendations will be constructive, radical and almost revolutionary. Will the Minister, following discussion with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, assure the House and me that the report will be debated at an early date, perhaps with a report of the Modernisation Committee, which is also relatively imminent?

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent chairmanship of the Procedure Committee, to whose recommendations we very much look forward. I am glad to hear that they may be radical and revolutionary—not always labels with which the hon. Gentleman likes to be associated. I am sure that the whole House would like his Committee's recommendations to be debated as soon as possible.

Fisher Foods

Henry Bellingham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
	the announcement yesterday that Fisher Foods was closing immediately.
	Three hundred and fifty-one redundancies will take place at once, and there will be a knock-on effect because a cold store next door to the factory will lose 84 employees, and it has been estimated that, for every job lost in the plant, four other jobs will be affected. That will have a profound impact on contractors and hauliers and, indeed, the agricultural sector in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). There may be as many as 1,500 job losses, which would double unemployment in our constituencies.
	The Albert Fisher Group, the parent company, went into receivership a fortnight ago, and KPMG allowed just two weeks—an incredibly short time—for a buyer to be found for the business. We have a loyal group of staff, some of them third-generation employees, who are gutted because they have been treated with contempt by a heartless and arrogant receiver.
	The company started business in 1965, and is a key, flagship local employer. It processes 84,000 tonnes of product; indeed, one in four packs of vegetables, including peas, rice, potatoes, carrots and beans, sold in our supermarkets are processed and manufactured by Fisher Foods. Since Albert Fisher took over the business from AGA in 1996, £30 million has been invested in a new packing plant and equipment. The infrastructure is superb, unique and among the best in Europe. Last year, £3.2 million was invested in a new pea-packing line. It would be a tragedy if that state-of-the-art business was closed and, even at this late stage, I hope that there is a chance of a management buy-out. I shall certainly ask to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss with her any help that her Department can give by providing advice and expertise on MBOs.
	There is a particular problem with peas. The firm's contracts with local growers for 24,000 tonnes of peas on 15,000 acres will be cancelled. The UK now has capacity for processing only 4,000 tonnes of peas, so 20,000 tonnes of peas will end up in the ground, which is another disaster. The contractors will not be paid on completion of their contract and will not be able to pay the farmers from whom they have rented land, which will have a profound impact on agriculture in my constituency and surrounding constituencies.
	The problem is both immediate and urgent—obviously, it is a bleak, grim and depressing day for west Norfolk—and I very much hope that you will allow an emergency debate on it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of this House and its Members. In that capacity, you must surely be aware of the distressing stories and rumours that are circulating about a rather sinister form of information that may well be held by Departments on Members of this House. In light of this matter, can you advise me as to what action you may be able to take in your role as guardian of Members of this House with regard to information on hon. Members being held in Departments and possibly being used in some as yet unspecified way by Ministers and Departments in the context of Members of Parliament doing their job in questioning them and holding them to account? May we please have your guidance on this very worrying matter?

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that these are not just rumours. As a result of the revelations secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I have the actual Department for Work and Pensions document that is involved. It seems to be in direct conflict with your statement of 28 November last year and contrasts with the assurances given to me by a Minister in Westminster Hall on 21 March. Will you consider that matter in particular?
	It seems that secret dossiers are being held on Members of this House and the other place, and especially on those Members who are considered to be "not friendly". Presumably, that will apply to some troublemakers on the Government Benches as well as on the Opposition Benches. Is it not in direct conflict with your advice and the code of ministerial conduct that civil servants—not special advisers or political advisers, but civil servants—have been asked to prepare the dossiers? Is it not totally inappropriate that all hon. Members are not being treated equally as true representatives of our electorate and that civil servants are discriminating between different Members?

Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have read the article in this morning's edition of The Independent, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has also referred. One of the serious allegations is that not only are files being kept, but Ministers are giving different answers to different Members. I hope that you would deplore such a practice, and confirm that any written answer should be a correct factual answer and should not be different for different hon. Members in different parts of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall reply to the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on record. I have to inform him that the Chair has no responsibility on these matters, but, of course, I expect Ministers to give proper replies to all hon. Members.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When hon. Members table a question, we have to abide by the rules of order governing the form and content of questions. We are not allowed to present an argument when tabling a question, and the question must be devoid of spin. What confidence can hon. Members have that the answers that they get will be equally devoid of spin? Is it not time that we had rules of order on the form and content of ministerial replies?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; Ministers are responsible for their replies.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. You will, of course, be aware of the provisions of the resolution of the House made in the 1996–97 Session, which, among other things, states:
	"it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
	I find myself in a difficult situation, because I know that when she was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), whom I see in her place—I have discussed this matter with her—completely inadvertently and entirely unintentionally gave the House inaccurate information in the Adjournment debate on the Throckmorton asylum centre that you granted me on 23 May. She said:
	"At peak capacity in 1976, 1,500 people were based there, so there is evidence to show that that number of people"—
	that is, the number of asylum seekers—
	"can be absorbed into the local area and accommodated there."
	She went on to say:
	"We are only expecting 1,000 people if it is a site of 750 people plus the 250 in local jobs."—[Official Report, 23 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 498.]
	That information took me by surprise, but I made researches during the recess. I wrote to the hon. Lady on 28 May—I wish that she were still a Minister, because she was a very fine one. In the letter, I said:
	"I have now spoken to Group Captain Richard Hampton who was the Commander of the RAF unit at the airfield until 6 months before its final closure. He was head of the Aircraft Department and worked with the Royal Radar Establishment and has an intimate knowledge of what happened at the airfield.
	In fact, contrary to what you said in the debate, there were only some 500 people working on the airfield and only a dozen or so of them lived there overnight because of the unsuitability of the area for residential accommodation.
	Most of the people who worked at the airfield lived on the Abbey Estate in Pershore, which was built specifically to accommodate RAF airfield personnel and was transferred to the local council for housing after the RAF left the airfield in 1976."
	I concluded:
	"The important point about this is that to put 750 asylum seekers and 200–300 staff on the airfield would represent a doubling of the peak activity of the airfield in 1976."
	The curious difficulty that arises is that the Minister who, entirely unintentionally, gave the House that information is no longer a Minister, so she is not in a position to correct the record herself. What advice would you give me, Mr. Speaker, in these unusual circumstances?

Angela Eagle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously a matter of great regret to me that one of the last things that I said from the Front Bench was inaccurate, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I apologise to the House for that. At the end of the Adjournment debate, when I stated what I thought was a fact, the looks of astonishment on the faces around me gave me some clue that I might not be on safe ground. I subsequently had my office researchers begin to check whether my statement was accurate, but unfortunately an event that I had not anticipated supervened to prevent me from putting the record straight from the Front Bench. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to do so, and I pass on my regrets to the House for misleading it.

Mr. Speaker: It looks as though the record has been put straight. If I let this matter go on any longer, it will take longer than the Adjournment debate.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I express my gratitude to the hon. Lady for her statement?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that there was a time, perhaps long ago, when, whichever party was in power, there was a custom—not a rule, but a custom—regarding Members asking written questions. If there was any difficulty about answering them, and the civil servants had to puzzle out why they were being asked, the Member concerned would ring the Minister's private office to explain the background. That saved a great deal of civil service time and led to better answers.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the Father of the House.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to return to your earlier ruling in response to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that it is not a matter for the Chair that the Government keep secret records on Members of Parliament. If it is not a matter for the Chair, what advice can you give to Members about how they can get access to that secret information that the Government keep on us and are using against us?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Minister concerned.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

David Blunkett: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 24th April (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme)) (as amended by the Order of 9th May (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme) (No. 2))) be varied as follows—
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(1) Paragraphs (5) to (7) of the Order of 24th April shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.
	(3) The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the first column in the following Table and shall be taken in the order shown and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to accommodation centres; amendments relating to Clauses 14 to 36. 7.00 p.m. 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to appeals; amendments relating to Clause 65, Schedule 3, Clauses 66 to 84, Schedule 4, Clauses 85 to 96 and Schedules 5 and 6. 10.00 p.m. 
			 Second day 
			 Remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 13, Schedule 2 and Clauses 37 to 64. 7.00 p.m. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 97 to 132, Schedule 7 and Clauses 133 to 135; remaining proceedings. 9.00 p.m. 
		
	
	(4) The proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second day.
	(5) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Before I come to the programme motion, I put on record my appreciation of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) led for the Government in the Committee that considered the Bill. I greatly appreciate what she did throughout the past year and thank her for her tremendous support.
	We have a two-day debate before us and I hope that we shall take as little time as possible over the programme motion so that we can debate the issues that the timetable tackles. I hope that I can help to achieve that by setting an example. I want to draw some matters to the attention of those who are not familiar with what happened to the timings for this important and complicated measure.
	On Second Reading, the Opposition appealed for extra time in Committee, and I said that I was willing to consider the matter with the Whips. I did that, and because of representations from Opposition Members in Committee that deferred three sessions of the 32 and a half hours allocated for our proceedings, we agreed that there should be an extra day. That was welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said:
	"I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and for the generous time available to scrutinise the Bill. The official Opposition have no objection and concur with the Government's proposal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 April 2002; c. 105.]
	I was grateful for that comment because it clarified that the additional day allowed the Committee to consider many, if not all the major issues that were before us at the time.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said in her summing up that we would table further amendments to deal with what is known as benefit shopping and the outcome of the Roth judgment. Everyone knew that further amendments had to be considered in the light of that. Two weeks ago, I said that there would be a further substantive amendment on the appeals process. Today, I am moving a programme motion that provides, not for the original one day that was allocated for Report and Third Reading, but for the two days that I personally requested so that the additional amendments could be properly scrutinised.
	With the additional day in Committee, the two extra days for Report and Third Reading are proper and adequate. The timetable motion shares the time available between consideration of accommodation centres and of appeals in a way that enables hon. Members to have their voices heard and their anxieties raised and considered.

Simon Hughes: When did Government policy on appeals change? Why did they table at the last minute their substantive amendment, which removes significant appeal rights from asylum seekers, but not from anyone else?

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman, who was in his place for a large part of the Second Reading debate, will recall that I indicated that the Government would present the results of their further consideration of the appeals process to hon. Members. I regret that, through legal advice, I was unable to table the substantive amendment before the conclusion of our proceedings in Committee. Those proceedings were adjusted at the hon. Gentleman's specific request and I am therefore sure that he will understand that I have tried to deal with concerns by extending the debate on Report and Third Reading from one to two days and ensuring that the changes were tabled with sufficient notice for Opposition Members to understand and consider the proposals. I have tried to avoid detrimental consequences.
	In the light of the information that I have given and the consideration that has been offered to the Opposition through sharing time for the different elements of the debate today and tomorrow, I simply move that we approve the timetable motion and agree to consider the issues as quickly as possible. 3.49 pm

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, in line 3, leave out from 'be' to end and add
	'supplemented as follows—

Re-committal

(1) The Bill shall be re-committed to a Standing Committee.
	(2) The proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 4th July.'
	The Home Secretary is, of course, right that the new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled in the last 24 hours or so were widely signalled. The fact is, however, that they are also of great importance, and they are numerous—I believe that there are about 90 on the amendment paper.
	It is no surprise to any of us that the Home Secretary has also been ingenious in the construction of the new clauses—in particular, new clauses 14 and 15. In them, he has yoked together two parallel sets of propositions. We strongly agree with one, but are in deep disagreement with the other, as I suspect he surmises. He has, by these means, presented us with the most interesting—and, from his point of view, delicious—opportunity to choose between voting for the Government to achieve what we have to achieve to make sense of what we have been saying for the last eight months, and voting against them to defeat measures that we find repulsive.
	We cannot choose to do what we seek to do, which is to propose and agree with those parts with which we agree, and to disagree with and dispose of those parts with which we disagree. The parliamentary process is designed to enable people to take the positions that they actually wish to take, rather than those that the ingenuity of the Government—and their draftsmen—force upon them. The point of the Standing Committee is to tease out these differences in a slightly more dispassionate atmosphere, and to provide opportunities for the Government and the Opposition to put forward different formulations.
	If necessary, if the Bill is not re-committed to Committee, we could ask our noble Friends in the other place to do that work for us. Indeed, Ministers might argue that, as there is no earthly chance of our winning a vote in Committee in this place, we might as well get on with the job and allow the other place—where there is a chance of the Government being overturned and of the amendments being amended—to do its work. On that thesis—although I am sure that it is not one with which you would have any sympathy, Mr. Speaker—we could dispense with the Standing Committee in this House altogether and, while we were at it, more or less dispense with the workings of this House between one election and the next, and leave it to the other place, where there is some possibility of the Government being defeated, to handle all legislation.

Tom Levitt: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that?

Oliver Letwin: No, I am not.
	I cannot accept the proposition that the mere fact that we are likely to be defeated in Committee means that we should not even discuss these issues there. We have not had the chance to do so, because as the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats has made all too plain, these new clauses and amendments were simply not before us when the Committee was sitting.

Simon Hughes: And they change Government policy.

Oliver Letwin: I do not know what was Government policy but I know that the parliamentary draftsman had not the foggiest clue about how to draft such new clauses at that stage. Indeed, looking at the drafting, I am not sure that he had a clear idea of what to do when he did draft them, but we shall come to that anon.
	These are immensely important matters that will affect the lives and livelihoods of living individuals. It is right that the Opposition parties should have a chance to agree, disagree and vote on the parts of these clauses that we respectively agree and disagree with. It is wrong that we should be forced into a straitjacket. The only proper course of action, therefore, is to take these particular clauses—I ask no more than that—back to a Committee of the House to reconsider them, to tease out the implications and try to come up with a differentiation between the parts with which we agree and those with which we do not. Should that fail, we shall, alas, be setting ourselves up for yet another encounter between this House and another place, which I, for one, would regret.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend reflect on this point? The nature of what is before us is so serious for those who are affected that, in a sense, the more that the House agrees, the more important it is for those areas on which there is disagreement to be considered with great care. We are to discuss the freedom of people and their lives in a way that is rarely used in the House, but would not it have been better for the Government to have shown themselves to be generous in such a matter to ensure that those who are affected have a respect for the law of Britain, even if that law, in the end, excludes them?

Oliver Letwin: I am bound, as so often, to agree with my right hon. Friend. The fact is that the new clauses, in particular new clauses 14 and 15, contain provisions that will not only deeply affect the lives and the sense of fair play of certain individuals, but that are at the very least highly tendentious in respect of their compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.
	It is not at all clear that the Law Lords in the other place will take the view that the provisions, or some of them, are compatible with the Human Rights Act. Indeed, equivalent warnings that we gave on a particular aspect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill have proved to be justified, which is another reason, another great cause, to debate these matters properly—in detail in Committee.

Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his hon. Friends know, we came to the view independently that the process of the Bill requires us to return to consideration in Committee if we are to do the job properly. That is why my hon. Friends and I put our names to the amendment.
	I follow the Home Secretary's example, first, in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who did an exceptionally good job at the Home Office. She was always courteous and always competent, and she always tried to give information. We did not always agree, but that was not to be expected. I must say that we were surprised that she was not kept in office, and I hope that it is not long before she returns.
	Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the new Minister of State; we look forward to working with her in her important responsibility. Again, we may not always agree, but we hope to disagree honestly and straightforwardly, and we shall seek to do the best for our fellow citizens and for the country.

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to echo his comments and add the hope that the brief sojourn on the Back Benches experienced by a current Home Office Minister is parallelled in the example of the hon. Member for Wallasey?

Simon Hughes: Unity for a moment, before we disagree.
	The Home Secretary was right, of course, to say that there have been lots of debates between the parties about the timetable for this significant Bill, and there is no dissent from the fact that it is hugely important. The Bill reflects an issue that is being considered in probably every European Union country. It is on the agenda for next week's Seville summit and it impacts on the European convention on human rights and other international conventions such as the refugee convention, the convention on the rights of the child.
	Everybody understood that we needed to do the job well, and the Home Secretary and his colleagues know that, at the outset, we sought more time in Committee. There was negotiation, but the period was not as long as we would have wished. We went through proceedings in Committee entirely properly, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will agree, I hope, that there was no time wasting on any side.
	We did our job competently, we tried to get through as much business as possible and, including the additional time that Ministers and Whips negotiated and the change to the order of consideration that accommodated the Home Secretary's quite proper wish to introduce the changes to appeals that he had flagged up and which were considered last, we had an extra day in Committee.
	I hope that these figures are accurate; I did the tally this morning. At the conclusion of the Committee stage, 17 clauses, three schedules, 13 new clauses and 53 amendments had not been debated. More importantly, and hence the reason for the amendment to return the Bill to Committee, the Order Paper contains 160 non-Government amendments, 35 Government amendments and two Government new clauses for consideration today and 49 Government amendments, six Government new clauses and two Government new schedules for consideration tomorrow.

Mike Gapes: As Parliamentary Private Secretary, I sat through the whole of the Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we made considerably better progress when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) was present than when he was there? Will he also confirm that if we added up the number of speeches made, he spoke more than everybody else in the Opposition put together?

Simon Hughes: I am not going to get involved in that debate. Some of the voices that were expected to come from the Labour party in support of immigrants and asylum seekers were rarely heard.

Paul Tyler: Including that of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes).

Simon Hughes: Certainly including the hon. Gentleman's. It was left significantly to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—to whom I pay tribute—and his colleagues, and to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, to put the case that, until this Government took office, Labour Members would regularly have put. That was a great disappointment to me and a greater disappointment to many outside who thought better of the Labour party and are increasingly greatly disappointed.

John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on which previous Labour Government or Labour party would have allowed these debates to be held with so little dissent on the issues for which the Labour party historically had great concern?

Simon Hughes: The House will draw its own conclusion. There are very honourable exceptions on the Labour Benches, and there is still hope outside that this House will not go down the road that the Labour party, in some of the proposals, is suggesting. Paradoxically, as the hon. Member for West Dorset said, it may be left to the House of Lords to prevent the worse excesses of the Labour Government. We will do our bit today and tomorrow, and we will not waste time. We will force votes where necessary, but if we do not win the day this week we hope sincerely that we will win the day in the House of Lords in a few weeks' time.

Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain that time is being taken up, yet seek to intervene to make partisan points.
	The most significant reason for sending the Bill back to Committee is, as the Home Secretary accepted implicitly in what he said to me earlier, the fact that major matters appeared on the Order Paper last week—the last opportunity for tabling new clauses and amendments. Those matters include major amendments that, for example, change the rules for appeals and the penalties for people involved in immigration.
	Constitutionally, it has not been possible for my party, the Conservative party or any other party to table amendments to new clauses and new schedules—we have not had time. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, variations of new clauses, such as new clauses 14 and 15, cannot be debated. Parliament is therefore unable to do the job on Report that it ought to do.
	This is a matter of huge concern outside the House and involves important questions of civil liberties. Given that we had no Special Standing Committee and took no evidence before having a guillotined Committee stage, it is a pity that the Government cannot see the merit in returning to Committee and doing the job properly. For every day that we do not do our job properly, others may have to pick up the pieces. When the lives and liberties of some of the most needy in the world are at stake, I would have hoped that we could do better.

Annabelle Ewing: I shall be brief, as many of us are keen to get on to the main debate. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The number of significant Government amendments that have been tabled at the 11th hour is astonishing. The proposed programme will give us no proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of matters such as the effective removal of the right of appeal for many asylum seekers.
	The late tabling of Government amendments will also mean that we will have no opportunity to debate some extremely important constitutional matters raised by the Scottish National party-Plaid Cymru group concerning the scope of matters devolved to the Scots Parliament. The Scotland Act 1998 devolved children's education to the Scots Parliament, but the restriction of discussion will result in Westminster clawing back devolved powers without any proper debate in the House. I understand that the issue was also not debated in Committee. That is surely unacceptable in this so-called mother of democracies.
	The proposed programme will also mean, in the light of the late tabling of Government amendments, that we cannot discuss the important constitutional matter of the new oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom. I raised on Second Reading the constitutional question of how a new applicant seeking to reside in Scotland could be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom, when the official Opposition in the Scots Parliament would not be prepared to take such an oath. The constitutional implications have not been discussed in the House, and the programme will probably mean that they will not be ventilated at all. The people of Scotland will find that very curious indeed.
	For those reasons, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will support it.

Tony Baldry: The first couple of amendments that we will consider in the main discussion relate to accommodation centres. Currently, they affect only Opposition Members, because no centre is proposed in a Labour-held constituency. I have a duty both to represent the concerns of my constituents about accommodation centres and to provide leadership for them on the question. My constituents, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have sought to channel their concerns into petitions to Parliament and proper use of the democratic process, which is why I have been very keen on a public inquiry into the proposals for a centre in my constituency.
	I am glad to say that, in the nearly 20 years for which I have represented Banbury, there has not been a single vote cast for a single National Front or British National party candidate at any local or national election. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the cheap jibe that the Home Secretary is making. This is an important point and I would have hoped that the Labour party would wish, as strongly as we do, not to see any support given to the tendencies that have been represented by the National Front and the BNP in this country. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way. Apparently, he does not. If the Home Secretary and the Government rush through legislation such as this, allowing just three hours in which to debate accommodation centres, three new clauses and some 30 amendments—the equivalent of about three minutes per amendment on average—it will be much harder for me to look my constituents in the eye and say, "These matters can be properly and fairly debated and resolved in the House of Commons."
	Using a huge majority to drive through this legislation at such speed and with minimal scrutiny does little for those who wish to ensure that Parliament is seen as the forum in which such matters are resolved. I can only hope that the other place will take note of how little time we have been given properly to debate and decide certain matters before us today, and that it will make use of its ability to exercise proper scrutiny.

John Gummer: From a sedentary position, the Home Secretary made a jibe that suggested that the people of Suffolk, Coastal need not worry about the Bill. However, given that it experiences considerable pressure through the arrival of asylum seekers, and given that Felixstowe is one of the largest ports in Britain, we should—like those who live in other constituencies—be concerned about the Bill. Of course, he made the jibe not because he knows about the constituency, but because it was suggested—yet again by a Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—that the Bill deals with matters of great concern to people's lives and liberty.
	However seriously we regard these issues, and however great our concern about the difficulties that the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers can cause our constituents, it is important that asylum seekers are treated properly by a nation that has a reputation for always doing so. Although I have always taken what might be described as a liberal view, I feel very strongly that, in dealing with serious issues that affect our constituents, we must adopt measures that are in common with those in the rest of Europe. I beg the Home Secretary not to take these issues lightly and grin and giggle; they matter to individual people, whom we care about.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who often gave way in similar circumstances when we were in opposition. I made a sedentary remark that related to his own intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—which bordered on an accusation that Labour Members were in dereliction of their duty to defend asylum seekers—and in doing so I referred to pressures. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of the leader of his own party in The Sunday Times of 21 April. In referring to his vision of hell, he said:
	"Brave new world, local council estate, acres of concrete, women raped regularly, single mothers, asylum seekers."
	We on the Labour Benches need no lectures on whom we should represent and how we should speak.

John Gummer: This is neither the time nor the place to argue about such issues in full, but I should point out that in 20 or more years in this House I do not remember ever regarding asylum seekers and immigration as subjects about which it is suitable to giggle—whether from a sedentary position or otherwise.

Peter Luff: In the light of the Home Secretary's regrettable intervention, I want to add one brief comment. I was very grateful for his letter, in which he praised me for the anti-racist nature of the campaign that I fought against the establishment of an asylum accommodation centre in Throckmorton. Indeed, my campaign was based entirely on an anti-racist premise. I want also to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry): proper time in which to discuss these matters would help us to continue the debate in an anti-racist way.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 330.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Mr. Speaker: I call on Mr. Blunkett to move new clause 1.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Accommodation centres: decisions and appeals

'Where an asylum seeker is resident in an accommodation centre under this Part, an initial decision on his claim shall be made at the accommodation centre by the Secretary of State, and any appeal to an adjudicator shall be made by the adjudicator at the accommodation centre.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Letwin: I should love to hear the arguments that the Home Secretary would make for my new clause, but I fear that he will not have that pleasure.
	I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in clause 15, page 9, line 5, after "accommodation", insert—
	'for no more than six months (subject to the provisions in subsection ( ) below)'.
	No. 2, in page 9, line 6, after "centre", insert—
	'for a maximum period of 10 weeks'.
	No. 31, in page 9, line 10, at end insert—
	'( ) A person may only be accommodated in an accommodation centre for a maximum total of six months, except in exceptional circumstances when the Secretary of State may arrange for an extension of at most a further three months in total.'.

Oliver Letwin: As the Home Secretary knows, the Conservative party has welcomed the idea of accommodation centres, not least because the Conservative party originally made the suggestion. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who earned such opprobrium from Labour Members for making that suggestion. She taught us the need to think hard about how the accommodation centres should be constructed.
	We are thus in agreement with the Government on the fundamental principle that there should be accommodation centres as a way of beginning to bring again some order to the chaos of our asylum system. However, the world is unfortunately a more complicated place than administrators would like it to be. It is not the case that adopting the right idea in general will deliver the right results in general. If the right idea is adopted but the details are wrong, the results will be wrong. Alas, the accommodation centres as proposed by the Government—so far—are not structured in a way that leads us to believe they will achieve the admirable results that both the Home Secretary and I want to see: the rapid processing of claims by asylum seekers so that those who are refugees, who have in many cases fled from appalling persecution, quickly find a home in this country, and those who are misusing the asylum system as a way around the immigration rules are speedily dispatched from this country.
	In order to achieve those admirable results, the accommodation centres need to be structured in a way that gives real hope that the processing can be quick. That is why I am moving new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and especially amendment No. 2, also tabled in our names. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will be willing to allow us to vote separately on the new clause and amendment No. 2, as each is, in our view, of sufficient importance to deserve a separate vote.
	New clause 1 has a simple purpose: to ensure that both the initial decision and the adjudication of any appeal are made in the accommodation centre itself. In a moment, the Home Secretary may—I hope that he will—explain to the House why, to date, the Home Office has resisted that suggestion. Perhaps there is some reason—some rational grounds—for that resistance, but I have to say that we have not yet heard those rational grounds.
	I know that it is unfamiliar for those who are, in effect, judges to be told where to sit. I know that the Home Secretary—like previous Home Secretaries—has sometimes had some difficulty in dealing with the judiciary and with the Lord Chancellor's Department, and indeed with adjudicators, but I maintain my faith that if the Home Secretary and the Home Office work hard enough the adjudicators could be persuaded that it would be appropriate for them to sit in the accommodation centres.
	Why would that be an advantage? At present we face an enormous paper chase. The Home Secretary will be much more vividly aware than I, considering the matter from a distance, can possibly be of the colossal amount of bureaucratic effort currently going into sending pieces of paper around the countryside in order that appeals can be heard at places that are often extremely distant from where the decisions were originally made and where the asylum seekers in question are resident. If the accommodation centre is to have its purpose fulfilled, it needs to be a place where that paper chase does not occur. Only if the adjudicator is on site will the paper chase be abolished.

Keith Vaz: Is not the answer to the problem posed by the hon. Gentleman more efficient administration at the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department? In other words, if the paper chase that he describes is dealt with, it does not really matter where the adjudicators sit—the administrative problems would be solved.

Oliver Letwin: In principle, the hon. Gentleman is right, but the problem is that human beings are involved and they tend to behave in ways that we are all familiar with in our own case.
	Let me try to illustrate for the hon. Gentleman the two pictures that I have in my mind. One—we shall come to the other as we proceed through the amendments and new clauses today—is of a smallish place in which asylum seekers largely from one location, and, I hope, in many cases, entirely from one location, are grouped. For example, let us consider a small centre, probably in a city, inhabited by asylum seekers from Somalia. It is occupied by decision makers equipped with an independent country risk assessment in which they can have real faith. They get to know about the intricacies of Somalia. No Member of the House could be expected to know much about Somalia unless they had visited it, read about it, and talked to people who really understand its current politics, tribal make-up and so forth. Similarly, decision makers cannot be expected to know those things unless they are dealing with those matters. An adjudicator on site, next door, who also understands the circumstances of that country, can make a judgment quickly about whether the applicant, given the information presented, is likely to be a refugee.
	Those are genuinely difficult human decisions to make. If they are made on the basis of remote location and paper, no matter how hard the bureaucrats in the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the court service work—I understand that they will strive hard—it is extraordinarily difficult for someone dealing with a range of different places and cases at a remote location to avoid sending back some of the papers for further verification and inquiry. Paper moves back and forth because human beings find it difficult to operate under circumstances in which they are dealing with a wide array of matters and are widely dispersed. We will not process these claims in a rational amount of time until we acknowledge that.
	I do not have to speculate about whether I or the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is in the right, as the Home Office has admitted that I am. It says that it will take about six months to process claims in the accommodation centres. That is why we wish to press amendment No. 2, which limits the processing to 10 weeks. I do not accept that 10 weeks is a proper time—it seems well beyond the proper time—but I think that it is a proper limit, because there will be exceptional cases that have to take longer than the main run. I think that I am right to say—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald will correct me if I am wrong—that when she first put forward the idea of accommodation centres, she expressed the hope that claims might be processed in six weeks. I share that hope.

David Blunkett: You are living in fairyland.

Oliver Letwin: The Home Secretary—this is an interesting remark—says from a sedentary position, and I am sure that he does so sincerely, that we are living in fairyland if we hope for that. I fear, however, that that remark tells us everything we need to know about what has happened. The Home Secretary and his Ministers have been captured by a corporate culture within the bureaucracy, which has come to believe that 18 months is the norm, six months is a heroic achievement, and six weeks is fairyland. While that culture obtains, we will never have an orderly and effective asylum system in this country.

David Blunkett: I do believe that six weeks, as the limit not the norm, is fairyland. In 1997, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, inherited a time span of 20 months from entry into the country to final conclusion of appeal. That was under a Government in which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) served as a Home Office Minister. With respect to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—with whom I have a lot of sympathy on his first proposition, to which I shall refer later—reducing the period from 20 months to six weeks is fairyland.

Oliver Letwin: I want to make three responses to the Home Secretary's remarks. First, I do not think that the proper limit can be six weeks—amendment No. 2 suggests a limit of 10 weeks, as I accept that there will be exceptional cases. Indeed, if the Home Secretary were to propose a mechanism for extreme exceptional circumstance, to be subject to a further extension, we would consider it. To establish a norm of six weeks, we need a general limit that is slightly longer. Were the Home Secretary to imagine that six weeks will be the norm in practice without setting a limit and by merely expressing a hope that everything will be achieved in six months, he will indeed be living in fairyland, because it will not happen.
	Secondly, if the system is operated in its current form, three years from now I will have the great electoral advantage of being able to explain that the Home Secretary has failed to address the chaos of the system because he has not dealt with many applicants. If there are 3,000 people and a six-month processing period, it does not take more than simple arithmetic to demonstrate that the system will deal with only 6,000 applicants out of, perhaps, 100,000, including dependants. A six-month processing period will not solve the problem. The Home Secretary has as much incentive as I do—perhaps even more—to find a way to turn six weeks as a norm into something that is far from fairyland. I accept that six weeks would not be the absolute limit, but unless he turns it into a norm, we will not bring order out of chaos.
	Thirdly, it is no part of my purpose to claim that previous systems or Governments were perfect. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was not and the same is true of him so far. We all share the blame for the fact that the system is in chaos. We need to discuss how to put it right. However, if it is still in chaos in three years' time, it will not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that it is someone else's responsibility. I think he recognises that it will be his responsibility. I assure him that he will not fulfil that responsibility with a six-month processing period. I am delighted to hear that he might be sympathetic to the idea of having adjudicators on site because that is the single biggest step, although not the only one, that he could take towards achieving something like a six-week processing period. If we could reach agreement on that, it would be a major step forward.
	I do not want to tarry much further because there is no point spinning out speeches once the point is made. However, one other matter is relevant. We propose that the centres are short-term items, through which people pass at great speed. They should be on a small scale and situated in the centre of cities. That model would avoid the problems created if they are structured as envisaged in the Bill. Our proposal would not require the measures that the Home Secretary is taking, which have proved so difficult for him to defend to his party. It is to the advantage of the Labour party itself that he should seek a model that conforms to our image of the centres. That is the way to avoid the problems. No one would worry about where a few children in a small centre were educated for six weeks. It is because human beings are to be in vast camps for six months that all the problems arise.
	I use the term "vast camps" advisedly. It is not that I think the Home Secretary intends to create inhumane places. I am sure he will try be as nice as possible when he structures the centres, but he must think about how they will look and feel. Let him reflect on what happened at Yarl's Wood and on the security costs of vast accommodation centres when claims take months to process. Those are real and practical considerations. Let us have in our minds a different model of small, quick, specialised, one-stop shops, because on that basis we can make real progress.

Simon Hughes: Although the debate will be relatively short, it is important because it deals with the sort of accommodation centres that we should have. There are grounds for consensus if the Government can be persuaded to move closer to the position advocated by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It is interesting that all parties agree that it is worth trialling accommodation centres. The idea has been put forward, in different guises, by different people. Everybody agrees that we are talking only about trialling them; they are not meant suddenly to take all asylum seekers, because most of them will be dispersed through the current system.
	This debate is about how big the centres will be and how long people will stay in them. It is about what will happen when people arrive at the centres and, in particular, whether adjudication should occur on-site. I take the view, and previous speeches by the Home Secretary are as good a basis for it as any, that people should spend no longer than six months in an accommodation centre. I think the Home Secretary used the phrase "God forbid" about the idea that anybody should be in a centre for more than six months. We want to tie him down to that objective, and we think that amendment No. 31 is a reasonable means of doing so. It provides that the six-month limit would apply other than in exceptional circumstances, when the Home Secretary would be able to grant a three-month extension.
	We tried to respond to the debates in Committee, in which the Government understandably said they did not want legal action to be taken simply because a person's stay in a centre slipped over the limit by a day or a week. We hope that the second stage of looking after people and determining their needs could be achieved in six months in normal cases and in nine months in exceptional ones. After all, it is contemplated that there will be only a handful of places. According to the Government, if 3,000 asylum seekers are to be accommodated, there will be only three or four centres, and if the centres were of the size suggested by Opposition Members, there would be at most 12 of them. I hope, therefore, that the House will be sympathetic to the idea of a maximum stay in a centre of six months, even with a three-month extension in exceptional cases.

Humfrey Malins: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he accept that there is an interesting parallel in criminal law with custody time limits? Those are absolutely fixed and rigidly adhered to, but they can be extended in particular cases by special permission from the judge.

Simon Hughes: Not only that, but along with some of my Scottish colleagues behind me, I am aware also that Scotland has a much more rigorous tradition of fixed time limits, and cases must be dealt with within 110 days.
	Where there is a will, there is a way. People will go into a reception centre for a week or two when they first arrive, and then there will be a second phase of assessment. Again, we must not forget that the centres are to be trialled, so this is a matter of preparing for them. If we build into the process enough staff and facilities, surely it will be possible to deal with cases within a certain time. We are starting from scratch; we do not have to plan around any historical difficulties. I hope, therefore, that amendments Nos. 164 and 31 will find favour with the House.
	We dissent from the Conservatives' view that the process can be completed in 10 weeks. That is near to being impossible, and I would rather start by setting a possible target. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who has legal experience, and others have made perfectly practical points. We have to be realistic because we are trying to find a working model, and I do not think that 10 weeks will be long enough. Whether or not the adjudication is done on-site, it is unlikely to be possible to do paperwork and translation, to check facts and to get evidence in one place. I flag up the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the time comes we will seek to persuade you to allow us to vote on amendment No. 164 or amendment No. 31, according to the convenience of the House.
	I turn now to new clause 1. I listened to the debate in Committee, and I listened to the hon. Member for West Dorset today. I have been persuaded that it would be possible, on a trial basis, to bring the adjudicator to the asylum seekers rather than take the asylum seekers to the adjudicator. I say that because a maximum of 12 and a minimum of four places around the country would be involved, because there would be a regular flow of casework and decisions, and because there will inevitably be a regular flow of people who want to exercise their right of appeal from the initial decision, which may be no, and go to adjudication, which might result in a yes.
	Although I am sure that most hon. Members remember this, I remind the House that a significant number of cases succeed on appeal. If 20 per cent. succeed in round one, the initial decision, one in five cases—a further fifth—succeed on appeal. If one is going to win in round two, it is important that round two happens soon after round one so that one does not have to endure the trauma of thinking that one's case has failed. It is also important that someone who is not a civil servant or a member of the Government or the Executive should make the decision, which will hold for a long time. An independent adjudicator, who is nothing to do with the Executive and who is seen to be independent, should come. So long as the process is clearly arranged so that the people whose cases are to be determined understand that the people who are to adjudicate are independent and not part of the decision-making process, and so long as the tribunal or court, as one might call it, comes to the place where the people whose cases are to be determined are, it is worth trying.
	There are many points on which we might disagree more fundamentally, but I hope that the House agrees that the proposal is worth trying. I hope, too, that the Home Secretary will agree that a six-month maximum, with an extra three-month period if that is really needed, comprise a reasonable middle way that can be adopted for the first accommodation centres. In that way, we might get a principle on which we all agree working in practice.
	I end with a warning: if we take the wrong road, if we create accommodation centres that are far too big, if we put them in the wrong place, if we do not provide facilities in them, the centres will not succeed. They will be unpopular, unsuccessful and inhumane. We have a duty to try to get the system right. Not all the wisdom is found on the Government Benches or in Government offices; it lies in the experience of those throughout the country who know what they are talking about and who want to share it so that the House can reach the right decisions.

David Blunkett: I will attempt to be brief, but I want—and I think the House expects it of me—to use this initial debate to set out our position in the general debate on accommodation centres, so that hon. Members know where the Government stand and what we will ask them to vote on at 7 o'clock.
	First, let me say in response to the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that there is not as much distance between us as might first appear. I accept that there should be a presumption that adjudicators should be on site, rather than that those on site should go to the adjudicators. I am prepared to consider how the House of Lords think such a provision might be phrased on the face of the Bill, and to talk to the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way to organise it.
	The arguments that the hon. Gentleman put today and that have been rehearsed previously lead us to a desire to ensure that we do not have to take asylum seekers out of a centre when it is not necessary to do so. One of the clear justifications for having accommodation centres and trialling them is the ability to create a fast-track, simple, administratively manageable process that cuts through the sheer mind-blowing bureaucracy that has bedevilled the immigration and nationality directorate since its inception. If we can do that, the morale of those working in the service at every level, including the adjudicators, will be improved. Furthermore, those who want their case to be dealt with speedily and expeditiously, and Members of Parliament who have to deal with enormous case loads because they have substantial dispersal centres in their constituency—I am one of those Members—would experience great relief. It is therefore in everyone's best interests to get the system right.
	The first thing to do may well be to pick up the suggestion that one centre trials the programme, but I accept that, given scepticism about the process of dealing with nationality and asylum, Members want a provision to be included in the Bill. I hope that that helps the House and assists the main Opposition on what they feel they need to press to a vote, given the time pressures of debate for three quarters of an hour, followed by a vote.

Keith Vaz: I, too, am persuaded by the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). It is not a matter of where the adjudicators sit; what matters is the quality of justice and the administrative support that is given. The Home Secretary may recall that when visitor appeals were first introduced, Labour Members suggested that adjudicators should travel to Mumbai and New Delhi to deal with those cases much more swiftly. I welcome what he has said and hope that we can pursue the matter.

David Blunkett: I am not giving way on the amendment as tabled because there will be cases in which it is appropriate for someone to be transported to another place for adjudication if that makes the process easier.
	That brings me to the substantive issue on which so much else rests. If I am right, the disquiet of people who are concerned about families in particular and the nature of services, including education, to be provided on the premises is based primarily on the length of time that people are likely to be in an accommodation centre. That has to be the case, I suggest to the House and colleagues whose views I respect and understand, because there are many disruptions to the lives of children and families as they go through the existing process, including dispersal.
	It is worth rehearsing the argument that the dispersal system was put in place because enormous pressures on London and the south-east resulted in great difficulty in providing services and disruption to social cohesion and community well-being. My predecessor therefore established a dispersal system which has been gradually improved, but still leaves a great deal to be desired. There were pressures in certain parts of the country, often in areas with the highest proportion of empty accommodation and where services were more readily available—for instance, there were places in schools which had not been taken up locally—so we ended up with major clusters of dispersal.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about asylum seekers who are seeking leave to remain or refugee status, not immigration per se. The way in which articles are written, interviews undertaken and speeches made—I exonerate entirely Front Benchers from the two main parties and, indeed, my colleagues—shows that some people, either by misunderstanding or mischief, have mixed the concept of immigration and the social, economic and cultural value that immigrants bring to our community, with the issue of dealing with those who enter the country on the premise that they risk life and limb if they remain at home or, in other words, are seeking refugee status.
	I make that point because we are debating how long someone should be in an accommodation centre on a trial basis before going through the whole process if they press their claim to final appeal; there is layer on layer of appeals, as we debated on Second Reading and have discussed elsewhere.

Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary knows, I share his view on that. I also share his view that there has been witting or unwitting confusion by commentators, which is unhelpful. May I repeat a practical suggestion that I made in Committee? When we have dealt with the Bill in the House, we should try to separate the provisions on asylum from those on immigration, as different rights and processes are involved. This major Bill would be much clearer if one part dealt with one issue and another dealt with the other.

David Blunkett: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that it was important to include the issues in the same Bill, just as I put the proposition that it was crucial that they were dealt with in the same White Paper. That is the case for reasons that most people accepted on 7 February as being part of an attempt to achieve a coherent nationality, immigration and asylum policy, instead of merely an asylum policy, which is what people have often accused Governments of different persuasions of having.
	We are all desperately trying to move towards such a policy. Those who attempt to inflame the debate outside—some of them know better and should be devoting their charitable work to children and families who are at risk in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere—do not do anyone a service when they denigrate the efforts of some of us to put on to this country's agenda a positive migration policy that welcomes people from throughout the world.
	That involves welcoming people who are making a contribution to our communities, doubling the number who can receive work permits, establishing new migration routes and ensuring with the UN that we can provide gateways for refugees so that they can apply for asylum from outside the country instead of having to seek entry clandestinely in order to make an asylum claim.
	If we can have a debate of the sort that we had on Second Reading and in Committee, between people with a genuine intention to see off racism and prejudice and put in place a trusted system that builds confidence in our communities and deals with those who flee from persecution, we will be doing everyone a favour.
	It is in that spirit that I want to address the issue of time limits. I have already made it clear that we do not believe that a 10-week provision is feasible. I believe that a six-week provision is fairyland. The shadow Home Secretary was right to say that the history of the issue under discussion is bedevilled by good intentions that are followed by complete failure. Having praised the enormous efforts of the immigration staff and people working for the support service for having reduced from 20 months to the current average of 11 months the process of taking people from induction to final appeal, it is unusual for a Home Secretary to say that there is so much further to go that it is breathtaking that people have put up with the system for so long.
	It is true that that process is better than those in other European countries. Our removal record is better, but it is still abysmal. Everyone who has ever dealt with a constituency case on asylum—for reasons that I have given, two thirds of my constituency cases relate to asylum in one form or another—knows that we have to get to grips with the matter once and for all. I have responsibility for policy and my officials have responsibility for administration and competent delivery. However, in the end, I accept that, as the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, I will carry the can if I am still in the job. Indeed, I suppose that I will also carry the can if I am put out of the job, so one way or the other, I will carry it.
	Let me explain what I hope we will be able to do. If we can achieve adjudication on site after immediate induction, we will be seeking to break the current cycle in which people come into the country, make themselves available and are usually put into temporary accommodation, where, regrettably, they usually live for some time while dispersal arrangements are made. It is unusual, but not impossible, for the children of families who are seeking asylum to be found an educational place, but it is difficult to envisage that happening in the first week or two. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) saying on Second Reading that the process takes time, so the issue is about time. Other hon. Members, including the two previous speakers, have pointed out that we are talking not about the principle of trialling accommodation centres, but about how long people will stay inside them.
	Under the current system, when people are dispersed, the relevant authorities find them the services that they need. They find accommodation, often by working with the voluntary sector, and a GP, and also a school if they have children. It therefore takes time to complete the second round of assessment following the dispersal, having already utilised temporary accommodation. If we could cut that out, and move people from induction straight into accommodation, we would be able to provide those services almost immediately, providing an initial assessment of people's needs, including, in the case of those with children, the needs of the child.
	I guarantee that we will consider how best to ensure that children's educational needs, having been assessed when they first enter, can be renewed at a certain point in their stay in the accommodation centre, which most hon. Members believe should be as short as possible and should not be more than six months, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. There will, of course, be exceptions. People extend the appeals process in all sorts of ingenious ways, helped by ingenious lawyers. That is their right. They try to extend the process for as long as possible, having not succeeded initially.
	Let me pause for a moment to give a picture of the length of time for which people will be in accommodation centres. Over the past two months, we have got the initial decision down to less than eight weeks for 70 per cent. of applicants. That is still not good enough; it is still not reaching the target for a year, but it is getting there very rapidly. Given that I have been quite robust about the nature of bureaucracy in the system, I pay tribute to those in the immigration and nationality directorate who have worked really hard to make that possible.
	We know that by granting either exceptional leave or refugee status we can get a quarter of those who initially apply through the system very quickly indeed. We are therefore left with those who go into the adjudication system and beyond. I believe that within the six-month period we should be able to, and in fact must, get through the adjudication system and at least the early part of the new revised second appeal procedure, which was discussed in Committee and will undoubtedly be debated in another place at great length if we do not get to it tonight.
	We are therefore talking about the small number who reach the six-month point. I am prepared to provide for that in the Bill where it occurs in relation to families. It is not a major problem for singles, who are often single young men. Occupying them, however, is a problem. Anyone who walks about the centre of Sheffield, Birmingham or townships around the country this summer will soon find that out. Young men from Kosovo, Romania or Poland—you name it—will be hanging about. I would rather that they were occupied properly. There is still much to be done on providing and facilitating volunteering. I should like them to be occupied meaningfully in accommodation centres. All those who go in will have a language facility for their own mother tongue and the ability to start learning English, which, if they do not stay, will be of help to them when they return.
	Ultimately, of course, the majority do not stay, so here is the nub of the question. What favour will we have done to families and children, when we come to remove them, if we have put their integration into neighbourhood schools at the top of the agenda? It is virtually impossible to drag a family away from a neighbourhood school.
	On removal policies, I inherited the most enormous target that hon. Members on both sides of the House pleaded with me not to fulfil—when it happened to affect people in their own constituencies. Local papers run local campaigns to stop people being removed. But if the Government do not have a removal policy, we have no borders and no asylum or immigration policy. We might as well just say, "Invite everyone in." That is pretty near to what one or two people have written—until, of course, those whom they represent lose their jobs or are unable to maintain the minimum wage because they are undercut by the flow of people.
	On a lighter note, the blessed name of Nicholas Ridley comes to mind. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he devised the most brilliant solution for traffic jams: he suggested doing away with traffic lights. Market forces would have come into play, and no one would have been able to get the car out of the drive, let alone down the road. People would have had to leave their cars at home, and traffic jams would have been a thing of the past. The same circumstances would apply to mass immigration to Britain if we had no border controls and no semblance of an asylum policy. The real world tells me that we must take cognisance of what happens in practice when we try to effect our end-to-end policy, including removals.
	In the House of Lords, I hope that we can include the educational interests of the child in the Bill so that the children of families who have been in an accommodation centre for six months can be assessed by the education service before the time has elapsed. Unless the family wishes to stay, it will be presumed that they will move out of the centre. I pick up the Liberal Democrat suggestion that there will be a maximum of a further 12 weeks for people to remain. It is right to provide for that, not least because it puts the onus on the immigration service to get its act together and ensure that people's cases are heard.
	Given that the majority do not qualify for refugee status, it would help us to be able to remove them to removal centres, which also detain. An article in a newspaper this morning wrongly used the term "detention centre" for accommodation centres. It would be helpful if those who did not qualify for refugee status could be put in a removal centre and removed.
	We are establishing new economic migration gateways and offering people alternative routes into the country. I therefore hope that vast numbers of people will not claim asylum when they are not at risk of life and limb but try to come here legitimately and openly as economic migrants. Agreement across Europe, which I shall endeavour to kickstart properly on Thursday in Luxembourg, will facilitate that. We will thus lessen the pressure on the system, including dispersal, which will continue for some years if the trial centres are a success. We must get dispersal right. We must provide support for schools, housing and GP practices that have to take the challenge of large numbers. I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for being present.
	I understand why hon. Members say that we should not put accommodation centres outside urban areas, but we cannot have an asylum and immigration policy that provides that only deprived, inner-city areas take those who are transient because they are seeking the right to remain in the country. We cannot have that; it is not right in principle or morally or for race and community relations.

Michael Spicer: Why does every organisation across the political spectrum, except the Government, oppose large accommodation units in rural areas?

David Blunkett: I am not sure that that applies to everyone of every political persuasion. It does not apply to people in my constituency. They already welcome transient people and will do that for the foreseeable future, through, for example, 130 units of accommodation, usually for approximately 250 people, but without facilities such as on-site language provision in the mother tongue or adult education. The children are found places in schools that are not oversubscribed. In my city, that applies to schools that are not in the south-west of Sheffield; schools in that area are massively oversubscribed because they have the best educational outcomes.
	Of course, when people find that they are under pressure in an area, as happens in many parts of London, they go private in large numbers. I am not just talking about Kensington and Chelsea, where more than 50 per cent. of residents send their children to private schools. In Hackney, one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, 16 per cent. of residents send their children to private school at secondary level. So, there are opt-out facilities for some, but not for others.
	I am not advocating that all accommodation centres should be in rural areas. I am simply saying that there should not be a presumption, such as the one put forward earlier. I am not seeking to pick on the shadow Home Secretary—as hon. Members know, I like him, and we are getting on far too well for that—but he did mention that it would be a good idea if the accommodation centres were in urban areas. I am merely saying, for balance, that there is a case for having a rational distribution.
	I also accept the rational approaches that have been made to us by the Refugee Council, for which I have the most enormous respect, regarding experimentation with smaller centres. I only have so many resources, I have to achieve economies of scale, and I have the ability to put the centres in place and to see whether they work, but I am not dogmatic about their size or their location. We are also about to embark on evaluating the private and voluntary sector proposals. If people can come forward with alternative sites, I ask them please to do so. I do not think that we have handled the detailed consultation and the initial proposals as well as we might have done, and I think that my hon. Friends who have also been dealing with this matter accept that as well.
	So, here we are this afternoon, with all the hype outside, and with general agreement that we should have a trial, and that the people in accommodation centres should be there as briefly as possible. There is also general agreement that it is not evil or discriminatory to educate children in an accommodation centre, where they will receive mother tongue and English support as well as a broader education, inspected by Ofsted and supported by the local education authority, without placing an undue burden on local schools, and that they should be there for as short a time as possible—with a maximum of six months for families in terms of their educational interests being assessed. That seems to be a reasonable compromise, and I am prepared for us to encapsulate it in an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords.

Iain Coleman: May I push my right hon. Friend a little on that point? I do not think that anyone on this side of the Chamber who has major concerns regarding the proposal to take children out of mainstream education is saying that that proposal is intrinsically evil. Bearing in mind the number of children involved, which would, as I understand it, be between 100 and 120 in any one accommodation centre, I think that my right hon. Friend is being slightly disingenuous—unwittingly, I am sure—when he says that those children could place a huge burden on local schools. In my local education authority area, more than 10 per cent. of primary school children and more than 8 per cent. of secondary school children are asylum seekers or refugees. The people who run the local education authority—the people at the coal face—have expressed sincerely and genuinely their belief that they are not being overburdened. So, how could such a tiny number of children—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is now growing into a speech.

David Blunkett: I shall return to my initial distinction. The facts that are put to Members need to be investigated. I am happy to do so in terms of determining whether we are talking about those who are in transit as seekers of the right to remain as refugees, or those who are seeking asylum, plus those who have gained refugee status, plus those who have come in through other migration routes. I accept that that can often be a major plus to a locality and to a school—I have said so already.
	The issue is which school or schools close to an accommodation centre could take 120 children, bearing it in mind that we have accepted that, with few exceptions, people are in principle in favour of trialling the accommodation centres.

Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: Let me finish. I received some acclaim from my hon. Friends behind me for which I am eternally grateful, as the Home Secretary does not often get it, when I said that the centres should not simply be in the most deprived areas of the country. However, places available and deprivation regrettably go together, because parental preference often leads, from those who are on the edge—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Home Secretary a certain discretion, but he is gently wandering over amendments that we have yet to discuss. I would be grateful, as would the House, if he confined his remarks to the amendments that we are dealing with.

David Blunkett: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I have made the point.

Lynne Jones: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend said that people are in favour in principle of accommodation centres. Can he give me the name of any organisation or group of people that is in favour of centres that accommodate 750 people?

David Blunkett: People's contributions to the debate have varied. In fact, the organisations that made representations often made different ones. When the Immigration Advisory Service and Refugee Action responded to the White Paper, they were quite willing, so long as there was no lengthy stay in accommodation centres, for them to have different volumes. The Refugee Council did not like the idea of 750 places. I have agreed that we shall experiment with a smaller centre, and we shall work with the Refugee Council on achieving that.
	There is an argument about size as well as duration of stay and what should go on in the centres, but the case that I am making is that those matters can be resolved through trialling and a bit of give and take. Broader services, including education, provided on the premises, so long as too long a stay is not involved, can be a plus, not a minus, for those who would otherwise be in transit from one place to another as they pursue their claim, as they are supported through the National Asylum Support Service system and as they eventually reach the point when integration becomes a reality for some and we need to support them better, but also when for the majority—more than 50 per cent.—removal has to be the final conclusion.
	In that spirit—within the overall context of the White Paper, with a drive for new routes for immigration and with a welcome for the diversity and the culture that it brings in respect of entirely new views here and, I hope, across Europe on the value of inward migration and an understanding of the worldwide movement that is taking place—I ask the House to reject the amendments and to accept the assurances that I am giving after listening and responding to Members on both sides who have put a rational case.

Tony Baldry: I support my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, particularly on amendment No. 2. The Home Secretary must know that not a single organisation concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers supports the combination of an accommodation centre for up to 750 people and a remote rural location, and he will recall that on 3 May a number of organisations ranging from the Refugee Council to Amnesty International wrote to him to express their concern about that combination.

Michael Spicer: To add to that list, the Transport and General Workers Union has come out today in support of that position.

Tony Baldry: Yes. We probably all heard Bill Morris on the "Today" programme saying that the policy—the combination of scale and location—was fundamentally flawed. The Government's White Paper, published in February, said that asylum accommodation centres would be judged on other things, including reduced decision times and tighter management of the interview and decision-making process.
	The Home Secretary said this afternoon that he was content that people should stay up to six months in accommodation centres. We know from answers given in Committee that up to 80 per cent. of asylum seekers are single young men. We are told that accommodation centres will contain up to 750 people. If the accommodation centres reflect the asylum-seeking population as a whole, at any one time up to 600 single young men will be in such centres; the impression is given that they will be there for six months.
	I would like to invite every hon. Member of this House to come and visit the site chosen for the accommodation centre in my constituency. The Home Secretary was candid enough to say that he thought that the consultation up to now had not been as good as it might have been. I say to him that there has not been any consultation up to now. There has been minimal consultation between the Government office for the south-east and the local planning authority on simple planning grounds, but there has not been any consultation with local people.
	It is a pity that no Minister has come to visit the proposed site. I wish I could say that the most exciting thing that can happen in the neighbourhood is seeing the traffic lights change. The only problem is that there are no traffic lights. The proposed site is between two villages. There is a pub in one of them, and a village shop in one of them. The nearest town is five miles away. There is no cinema in the town, and no college of further education. Facilities are fairly limited. What will these young men do for up to six months in that centre? They are going to get bored out of their minds. The Home Secretary made some comments earlier about people getting bored in the summer; six months is a very long time.
	We were told in Committee that only 8 per cent. of applications actually succeed. That means that a large majority of applications to remain as refugees under the UN convention fail. If people are to remain in remote rural accommodation for up to six months, I predict that a number will just drift away to where communities of their own nationalities live. That will not be to the benefit of the Home Secretary, who wishes to see these accommodation centres succeed.
	If we are to have accommodation centres, we require a much greater sense of applications being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If the impression is simply given that large numbers of people are to be housed in remote locations for up to six months, asylum seekers will find that incredibly frustrating. There is a likelihood that we will start to see a significant number of those asylum seekers, particularly those who predict that their claims may fail, simply fading away because they know that their chances of being deported, even if they are discovered, are fairly remote.
	The Home Secretary is determined to have these large accommodation centres in remote rural locations, and no hon. Member need doubt the remoteness of the locations selected. We all know why that is; as he acknowledged this afternoon, the Home Secretary was tight for funds and had to make a deal with the Treasury. The only way in which he could do that was by using existing MOD or other Government land, some way away from London and the south-east. If he wants this to succeed, there needs to be a much greater sense that applications will be dealt with expeditiously, as opposed to the impression of drift that he gave this afternoon.
	The idea of 750 people, 600 of whom are single young men, being bored and frustrated in remote rural locations for up to six months suggests that this is a trial destined for failure.

Simon Hughes: This has been an extremely constructive and conciliatory debate on a controversial subject, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that, as he calls the shots by virtue of his office. Let me say to him mischievously that he may have led us into trespassing on the next group of amendments, and indeed the two groups following that, but I understand the reasons: clearly, what he said on the issue of size will determine the views that we take on other matters. I hope that he will offer a similar response when we discuss location, for example.
	If I interpret the Home Secretary correctly, he has accepted the Conservative proposal on the siting of the adjudication process, which is welcome, as well as accepting in principle, if not in the absolute detail of the wording, the Liberal Democrat proposal for a six-month provision with a three-month extra opportunity in suitable cases. I understand that that is in relation to families only. I appreciate that that is a priority, and it deals with the issue of children. The Home Secretary and I are more closely associated with each other in our ideas on that than we are with some others of our colleagues in our respective parties.
	There remains a big issue in relation to single male asylum seekers. I have experience in my constituency of a centre in which 750 of them were housed for a long time, and I do not think that an indefinite period is an adequate outcome for any centre. I hope that we will discuss that constructively again, and I will be happy to take part in any such discussions. We welcome the Home Secretary's openness to consultation, and we will not press amendments Nos. 164 or 31 to a vote.

Oliver Letwin: I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Home Secretary for making significant constructive moves towards achieving consensus. I accept entirely that it will be better to see what the Government can come up with in the House of Lords on the question of adjudicators than to press the motion to a vote. I hope, however, that we will have an opportunity—at 7 o'clock, I think—to vote on amendment No. 2, because I persist in believing that the six-month period, although it might seem rational to those immured in the current culture, is likely to generate all sorts of problems. I want to insist on the 10-week limit.
	It is no part of my intention to suggest that the centres should all be located in areas of deprivation. In fact, there is a strong case for their not being located there, for just the same reason as there is a strong case for their not being located in remote rural areas. In each case there are particular difficulties, for both the inhabitants and the local populace. That is why we should try to use the 80 per cent. or so of the country, by habitation, that is neither very deprived nor very remote and rural.
	I persist in believing, with the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others, that city and suburban sites would be better. What really distresses me is that the Home Secretary is not even talking about trialling that proposition. A small number of trials in this domain will not satisfy the urgent requirement for order in a chaotic system, but if we are to have trials—as opposed to a fully fledged, fully working system—they should at least encompass all possibilities, so that we can revisit the argument two or three years from now on the basis of full information. I hope that the Home Secretary will make a concession on that point in due course, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Visiting committee

'(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a committee (to be known as the Visiting Committee) for each accommodation centre.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall prescribe the functions of the Visiting Committee by making regulations under this Part.
	(3) Those regulations must include provision—
	(a) as to the making of visits to the centre by members of the Visiting Committee;
	(b) for the hearing of complaints made by persons detained by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State;
	(c) requiring the making of reports by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State;
	(d) that every member of the Visiting Committee for an accommodation centre may at any time enter the centre and have free access to every part of it and to every person residing there.
	(4) Accommodation centres created under this Part may also be inspected by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Social Services Inspectorate, whenever they think it appropriate.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in clause 14, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'( ) For a period of no less than ten years from the commencement of this Act all such accommodation centres shall be publicly owned and their management and employees directly employed by the Home Office or relevant local authority.'.
	No. 3, in clause 26, page 12, line 36, leave out—
	'The Secretary of State may'
	and insert—
	'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to'.
	No. 40, in page 12, line 36, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
	No. 166, in page 13, line 6, at end insert—
	'( ) independent legal advice and representation'.
	No. 167, in page 13, line 7, leave out paragraphs (i) and (j).
	No. 4, in page 13, line 11, at end insert—
	'(k) such legal representation and advice as is reasonably required by an asylum applicant in connection with an application for asylum or any appeal resulting therefrom'.
	No. 168, in page 13, line 11, at end insert—
	'(1A) The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident of an accommodation centre—
	(a) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for the purpose of providing a resident with proper occupation and for the purpose of maintaining good order,
	(b) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.'.
	No. 42, in page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 43, in clause 27, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
	'which shall not be more than 15 hours per day'.
	No. 133, in page 13, line 34, leave out "any dependant" and insert "a spouse".
	No. 136, in page 13, line 35, leave out—
	'and any dependant of his'.
	No. 137, in page 13, line 39, leave out—
	'resident and any dependant of his'
	and insert "dependant".
	No. 138, in page 13, line 40, leave out—
	'resident and any dependant of his'
	and insert "dependant".
	No. 44, in page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
	No. 131, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
	'(10) a resident who is required to leave the centre under subsections (4) or (5) may appeal to an adjudicator under Part 5 of this Act.'.

Humfrey Malins: We move on to a group of amendments relating to the operation of, and conditions and facilities—other than education—at, accommodation centres. I feel sure that new clause 3 will find favour on both sides of the House, for two reasons. First, it would not cost the Government any money; and, secondly, although I cannot be sure, I think that it was my idea.
	The House will be interested to know that not one of the amendments that we tabled in Committee was accepted by the Government, save for the triumph achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—she is in her place—who discovered that a particular clause referred to a seventh subsection of the previous clause, even though it had only six subsections. In that regard, she achieved a notable scalp.
	Amendment No. 3 would impose a duty on the Government to provide services at accommodation centres, amendment No. 4 would impose a duty on them to provide legal advice, and amendment No. 133 and subsequent amendments deal with dependants. I hope that they and new clause 3 will find favour with the Government.
	The establishment of visiting committees is surely a non-controversial issue. Over the years, many of us have been struck by the high quality of the various visiting bodies and committees involved with prisons. I discovered as much in my career as a lawyer, and on my more recent travels as a member of the Home Affairs Committee I have seen the excellent work that visiting committees undertake at prisons. They talk to inmates, hear grievances and make positive suggestions; they are an important safety valve.
	Of course, such committees operate in the asylum world to equally good effect. Two months ago, I visited Oakington, as several hon. Members have doubtless done. It is a very well run and orderly establishment; indeed, it struck me in many ways as a contented establishment, in terms both of its staff and of those who stay there. One reason for that is the presence of an active visiting committee. I met Penny Lambert, the chairman of the visiting committee, and several of her colleagues. They are very involved with Oakington. They have made several helpful suggestions to the staff about how life there could be improved, and they have heard from residents at Oakington. They have contributed a great deal to making it a better place, simply through their presence and sympathy, and the safety valve that they offer. I know that there is a difference between a detention centre such as Oakington and an accommodation centre, but I see no reason why something that works well for Oakington could not be set up for the accommodation centres.
	We are broadly supportive of the accommodation centre concept. We understand from the Bill that the Government propose to put several important facilities and services in the centres, and we think that that is right. In one or two respects, the Government perhaps do not go far enough. In our opinion, the Government should be delighted to accept new clause 3, which sets up a visiting committee for each accommodation centre, because it has no implications for the Treasury. Nobody has to ask the Treasury for money, because our communities contain well motivated, good people with an interest in various institutions—asylum institutions, prisons and the like—who would be only too keen to start up visiting committees. The longer people will stay at the accommodation centres, the more compelling becomes the argument for the visiting committees, although people stay only briefly at Oakington and the visiting committee works well there. I am sure that the Government will not oppose new clause 3.
	The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) was the Minister in Committee, and I pay personal tribute to her for her kindness throughout our debates and for her dedication and commitment. She is a loss to the Government, although we welcome her replacement, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), to the high post that she has achieved. The hon. Lady and I have had happy dealings before on the Home Affairs Committee. I hope that the atmosphere prevalent in Committee will be replicated today, and it is on that basis that I invite the House to support new clause 3.
	Amendment No. 3 was discussed in Committee. It relates to the services that the Home Secretary is to provide at accommodation centres. In Committee, many of us were slightly alarmed that the first line of clause 26, as it is now, provides that the Secretary of State
	"may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident of an accommodation centre".
	The amendment would change those words to read:
	"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange".
	We had a long debate on the issue in Committee. However well intentioned this Home Secretary and Government are, the fact is that the Bill would allow them to choose not to provide the services in question. If the Home Secretary is determined to provide various services, we see no reason why he should not have the duty to do so imposed on him. After all, the facilities, assistance and services provided for in clause 26 will be vital to the well-being of the asylum seekers during their stay. The people who will stay at the accommodation centres may have had terrible journeys and a grim time. They are vulnerable people, and some of them are shattered. Often they need a lot of care and attention when they go to the centres, and many are very young.
	I see no reason why the Government should not accept that they have a duty to provide the various services needed at accommodation centres. If the Government insist that the clause should use only the word "may", I believe that that will be because they want to reserve the right not to provide the services if they do not want to. I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted.
	Amendment No. 4 deals with legal advice, another matter debated in Standing Committee. Many of us believe, along with respected non-governmental organisations in the field, that it is essential that top-class legal advice be provided, on the spot and from the very beginning. One reason why Oakington works well is that great numbers of lawyers from various bodies are available there. For example, the Immigration Advisory Service alone has 54 caseworkers on site. When asylum seekers arrive at Oakington, they are provided, within minutes, with the best skilled legal advice possible. They do not have to travel 20 or 30 miles to a nearby town to find a solicitor, because the legal advice that they need is on hand.
	So far, the Government have stubbornly refused to include legal services among the facilities that they must provide at accommodation centres. They say, "Of course we will provide legal services there", but why does that requirement not appear in the Bill? Early legal advice is vital, and makes for efficiency.
	The Standing Committee was told by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey, that there was
	"no doubt whatever that legal services will be freely available in accommodation centres as required."
	If so, why does the Bill not make that a requirement? The hon. Lady also said:
	"In the trials, we would certainly want to develop co-located services or access to services".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 May 2002; c. 171.]
	Those phrases bear consideration. I assume that the rather weak phrase
	"we would certainly want to develop"
	is another way of saying, "We are going to do it." In addition, I have always been confused by the word "co-located". Does it mean "on the site"? I hope so, but if it means "next door", or "down the road", the Government should say so. However, I do not know what the development of co-located services or of access to services will mean in practice.
	Moreover, the phrase "access to services" is meaningless if people at accommodation centres are told that the nearest legal services to which they have access are a number of miles away, and that they can make their own way there if they want to. The Government's response on the issue was not very satisfactory.
	The Minister who dealt with this matter in Standing Committee did not want the requirement to provide access to legal services to be included in the Bill because, as she told the Committee, the vast majority of legal services are funded not by the Home Office but by the Legal Services Commission, which already has adequate powers. That makes me scratch my head, as I am not sure what it means in practice. I think that she meant that the Legal Services Commission has some money and some powers, and that it is for the commission to decide whether to make legal advice available in the centres. That is not at all satisfactory.
	The Minister also referred to another aspect that is very troubling. I only spotted these words again this morning, at an appallingly early hour, when I was looking at today's amendments. The hon. Lady referred to moves to shift funding of NGOs from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there was no perceived conflict of interest about the Home Office running a system and funding advice to people in it. However, there has been no perceived conflict of interest for many years with the principal organisation providing legal advice and assistance—the Immigration Advisory Service—which has been funded by the Home Office since its inception. I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government for the level of funding that they provided to the IAS. I also pay sincere tribute to this Government for the level of funding that they have provided to the Immigration Advisory Service. How else could the IAS have its lawyers all around the country in different bases and at Oakington, were it not for Government funding?
	During the time that I spent as chairman of the trustees of the Immigration Advisory Service, not once did the then Government ever seek to influence the service in one way or another. Conservative and Labour Governments have always given the IAS the grant and said, "Get on with the job." We have the best system in Europe when it comes to Governments who make immigration and asylum laws and also fund organisations to act against them, without interference. I pay tribute to them for that.
	The Government need not trouble themselves about a perceived conflict of interest, but they should trouble themselves about there being a duty on them to provide legal advice on site. I am aided in my argument by all the respective NGOs. The Law Society also believes that asylum seekers should have access to good quality legal advice and representation at all stages of the system. Good quality independent legal advice at the earliest stage saves time and expense. Frontloading the services results in minimising delay and costs.
	The Law Society has carefully considered the Government's comment that access to legal advice and representation is not included in the list of facilities to be provided at accommodation centres, as such services are largely funded by the Legal Services Commission. However, the Law Society says that access to legal advice and representation is of such fundamental importance to the applicant and for the proper and efficient running of the asylum system that it should be included in the Bill.
	If the Government remain concerned about funding issues, legal services could be included in the Bill, in the same way as facilities for health and religious observance are provided for in clause 26(1)(g) and (h)—that is, by referring to facilities relating to or facilities for legal services. That would ensure that the Bill provides for access to legal services while still dealing with the Government's concerns about funding, whether those concerns are real or not. I hope that the Government will think again about this important issue.
	This part of the Bill relates to the conditions of residents at accommodation centres. A glance at clause 27 reveals that it remains similar, if not identical, to the one that caused all Opposition Members some concern in Committee. Amendments Nos. 133, 136, 137 and 138 would remove, from time to time, the word "dependant" from clause 27. This is the mischief about which I am complaining. Clause 27(4) states:
	"If a resident of an accommodation centre breaches a condition imposed under this section, the Secretary of State may—
	(a) require the resident and any dependant of his to leave the centre".
	It was hard in Committee to make the Government clarify exactly what conditions could be broken that would give rise to the draconian step of requiring a resident to leave the centre, but many of us felt distinctly uneasy at the prospect of not only the offender but everybody linked to that person, such as a spouse or dependant—who may not have behaved remotely badly—being required to leave the centre.
	Subsection (5) states that if a dependant of a resident breaches a condition, the Secretary of State may require the resident and any dependant to leave the centre or authorise the manager of the centre to require the resident and any dependant to leave the centre. Therefore, if someone who is dependent on someone else breaks a condition of residence, not only is the dependant chucked out but so is the resident because of the sins or faults of another.
	We need reassurance that someone will not be thrown out of an accommodation centre for breaking a minor condition. The only parallel that I can think of is in bail hostels, where minor infringements are often overlooked. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. I should also like some understanding from the Government about our unease at the prospect that people will, in effect, be treated harshly because of the sins of others. This issue needs a sensitive touch—a light touch—and a realistic approach.
	I have outlined my amendments in this group. I commend them strongly, with some hope that the Government will accept them. There cannot be a reason for not accepting the appointment of a visiting committee. There are awfully good reasons, at this stage of the Bill's progress, for the Government to accept this proposal and agree that it is their duty to provide various services and to have the provision of legal advice inserted in the Bill.

Richard Allan: I shall speak briefly to the amendments in this group that outline some of the Liberal Democrats' remaining concerns about accommodation centres. I am conscious that important groups of amendments remain to be debated, so I will not detain the House for long.
	Liberal Democrat Members support new clause 3. We believe that a visiting committee would be a helpful addition for the accountability of the new accommodation centres. In amendment No. 30 we express our view that, for the first 10 years at least, there should be a commitment on the part of the Government that the accommodation centres remain in public ownership. We went through this in Committee, where the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) was open about the fact that the Government were considering a number of options.
	In principle, we have general concerns about the use of the private sector for prisons and facilities that deprive an individual of liberty. As the new accommodation centres will receive a great deal of public scrutiny, it is important that there are clear lines of accountability from the centre to Ministers. Obviously, one hopes that nothing will go wrong in any of the centres, but if it does, people will not be satisfied if it is suggested that the fault lay with a particular contracting company. The amendment relates to the establishment of clear lines of accountability and in our view that means retaining the centres in public ownership—at least initially.

Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as an aside, that he had concerns about the use of the private sector for prisons and the like. Perhaps he is not aware that his colleagues in the Scots Parliament who sit in coalition with Labour are pursuing a private prison route.

Richard Allan: I certainly am aware of that. In the wonderful federation that is my party, the Scottish party makes its own decisions which reflect its political circumstances. I know that the Minister for Justice has been faced with some difficult decisions as regards prison accommodation in Scotland.
	Amendments Nos. 40, 166, 167 and 168 attempt to tease out how the facilities will be provided. We want to consider two forms specifically. The first is what must be provided—like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) we have included legal advice. We, too, feel strongly that access to good legal advice speeds up the asylum determination process and is not something that the Government, or anyone, should fear—it can facilitate the process and ensure that there are fewer legal errors that could lead to an appeal. The amendment would distinguish between facilities that "shall" or "may" be provided.
	Amendment No. 42 relates to our concern about how cash is given to asylum seekers. We understand that the Secretary of State will make regulations governing the handling of cash. It is important for an individual's dignity that they have some cash and some purchasing power—whether the amount is large or small. That is significant even when the basics of life are provided.
	We are concerned that currently there is dual provision. The Secretary of State may by regulation determine the amount of cash given to an individual, but the accommodation centre manager may also have that power. The amendment would limit that power to the Secretary of State alone.
	Amendment No. 43 would establish the extent to which the powers to require an individual physically to be present at the accommodation centre might be widened to create, in effect, a form of detention. The amendment would limit to 15 the number of hours that an individual was required to be present. We seek an assurance from the Minister that there is no intention that people should remain in the centre for 24 hours, for example—that would clearly move us into the realm of detention.
	Amendment No. 44 revisits a subject that we considered in Committee, but about which we are still uncomfortable—the relationship between behaviour in an accommodation centre and the actual asylum claim, which can be a matter of life or death for an individual. We understand that the Government may require an individual to be present in an accommodation centre as part of the terms of their immigration status—they would be allowed into the country on condition that they resided at the centre.
	Under clause 27, the Government would take powers, in effect, to evict an individual from an accommodation centre because of their behaviour, and such eviction—as we heard from the hon. Member for Woking—would also apply to their dependants. There is a lack of clarity in the provision, in that a condition of immigration law may require a person to remain at the centre, yet their behaviour might lead to their removal. That could give rise to conflict, especially if the individual was pursuing an asylum claim, as they might find that they were in breach of their immigration conditions, thus prejudicing their claim. If an individual has done something wrong, sanctions need to be taken, but if those sanctions force an individual to breach their immigration conditions because they are required to leave the accommodation specified under those conditions, that is a matter for concern.
	I shall not speak further at this stage, save to point out that there are some important amendments in a later group.

Michael Spicer: As we have already heard, no one likes the Bill's provisions for accommodation centres—neither the Refugee Council, nor the Transport and General Workers Union. The Government seem to be the only people who are pressing them.
	One of the reasons for that dislike is the cavalier way in which the Government are discussing the resources required and the provision of facilities. Amendment No. 3 is much more important than meets the eye because it would put a duty on the Government to be much more specific.
	There have been several examples of the Government's cavalier approach to the assessment of facilities at a proposed accommodation unit adjoining my constituency. I recently asked the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he had made of the additional funding required for health services if a centre was built in that part of south Worcestershire. The answer was:
	"As yet, no assessment has been made in respect of any additional health or social care needs."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 356W.]
	Such vagueness about the provision of facilities is serious and it goes right across the board—deep into the Home Office.
	Earlier today, the former Under-Secretary at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), made a dignified apology about misinformation on figures that she had given the House. We are not dealing with size at present but it is obviously relevant to the provision of facilities; it is certainly relevant to information.
	On this occasion, I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who was incompletely briefed on the matter. However, I am seriously worried about the poor information from the Home Office on the provision of facilities. That is why it is so important that the Government accept amendment No. 3.
	The planning inquiry constitutes a specific reason for the Government to be less muddled about the facts and information they give about the provision of facilities and services in respect of their proposals. I understand that there will be a proper planning system, so if the Government continue to be muddled and misinformed when they provide information to the planning inspectors, it will be serious for two reasons. First, the result could be a judicial review—but that is for the Government to worry about. Secondly, however, the acceptability of the planning system could be undermined.
	If people think that the planning arrangements are a fix, with the Government providing false information about the facilities and the local requirements for the fulfilment of the policy, that could have a serious effect on the credibility of the planning procedure. Above all, the process must be fair. I tell my constituents not only that the planning procedure is a good thing but that it will make a fair judgment as to whether the proposals are right.
	If the Government continue to give false, bad or muddled information about facilities, the results for the planning procedure could be serious, so I hope that they will consider amendment No. 3 carefully. It imposes a duty on them to provide proper, clear information about facilities.

Tony Baldry: I shall be brief. No one could argue with the proposals for visiting committees, but such committees would, in essence, be concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers. As the accommodation centres will be sited in remote, rural areas, will the Government consider setting up liaison committees?
	When I was first elected, there was a big United States Air Force base in my constituency where about 750 young men were stationed. Even with 750 disciplined service men, it was necessary to set up an ad hoc liaison committee, organised and operated by the district council, which provided the secretariat. Representatives of the parish council could hold regular meetings with the personnel who ran the base.
	It would be extremely helpful if Ministers suggested to local communities that they were prepared to establish similar committees, where representatives of the parishes surrounding the accommodation centres could hold regular meetings with the management of the centres to raise matters of concern to the local community. Local people could then have confidence that their concerns would be addressed in a timely, proper and systematic way. That would ensure that they were not frustrated and that they could express concerns and grievances. [Interruption.] I hope that Ministers will be kind enough to give the House their attention because if they want these experiments to work, they must be aware of the concerns of communities about the siting of accommodation centres.
	Such concerns must be addressed, but given that none of the centres will be sited in the constituencies of Labour Members, no Labour Member will be able to express those concerns in the Division Lobby. As no Minister has taken the trouble to visit one of the sites or visit or talk to representatives of local communities, the least that they could do is give the House their attention for the very short period that the Government have deigned to give Members to discuss their concerns this evening.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I will in a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised the issue of resources, and was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer). I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, and I want to ask a further question. The Bill makes it clear, in many instances, that if people misbehave in accommodation centres they will be expelled. What will happen to them? Where will they go? Moreover, what local police resources will be used in relation to such people? If someone decides not to return to the Bicester accommodation centre, will Thames Valley police be notified? If they are notified, will they be expected to find and apprehend those individuals? If so, what assessment, if any, has the Home Office made—after all, the matter is one for that Department—of the effect on the resources of Thames Valley police?
	My information is that, as yet, not only has the Home Office not consulted other Departments or organisations such as the health service or education or social services in Oxfordshire, but there has been little if any consultation with Thames Valley police on the likely impact that the accommodation centre will have on their resources.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: I will in a moment. If Ministers cannot even liaise with and consult organisations within their own Department, what hope is there for a sensible assessment of the demands on other areas of Government activity?

David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Baldry: I should give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) first.

Hilton Dawson: I am most grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman realise how tedious it is to hear the nimby argument paraded over and over again? His party is supposed to support accommodation centres. I, with great qualms, support them. I would support the principle of accommodation centres coming to my constituency, and he should do so in relation to his.

Tony Baldry: My constituents—and other constituents—find it deeply patronising that their concerns are described as nimbyist or, as some have described them, racist. They find that deeply offensive, as they are raising serious concerns. More than 10,000 of my constituents have petitioned the House sensibly and rationally to ask for a public inquiry into this matter. Why do they want that at the end of the planning process? They want it so that their concerns can be rationally and sensibly examined by an independent inspector. That is all that they ask for, sensibly and reasonably.
	The argument made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre would be much stronger if he could find a single organisation concerned with refugees and asylum seekers that supports his argument. But every organisation from Amnesty International to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the British Medical Association to the British Red Cross to the Refugee Council opposes the combination of size and location.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: Not again. If the hon. Gentleman cannot get his mind around the policy concerns of such organisations, he is clearly not bothering to read the post that he receives each morning.
	The House needs to discuss other important groups of amendments. Ministers need to pay attention to how to meet the concerns of local residents. In addition to visiting committees, therefore, I hope that they will also consider the establishment of liaison committees and listen carefully to what has been said about the provision of services. When consultation takes place with local authorities, and if there is a public inquiry, can we have full, coherent and candid answers about what demands accommodation centres will place on local providers of local services?

Rosie Winterton: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for trying to be as brief as possible, as I know that there is a desire to move on to other groups of amendments.
	With regard to new clause 3, I hope that it will provide reassurance if I say that we have already been thinking about the type of committee envisaged. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about a possible liaison committee, we can take into account all sorts of models, and that type of committee is not necessarily ruled out. Clearly, it is important for the public and asylum seekers to have confidence in the policies and the way in which we carry them out. An independent body of the type envisaged by the new clause is one approach. I hope that that will provide reassurance, and that new clause 3 will not be pressed to a vote.
	With regard to amendment No. 30, we do not believe that it is sensible to rule out the option of contracting out the running of accommodation centres. Successful examples of such contracts exist, and contracting out is a familiar method of running some National Asylum Support Service accommodation and removal centres.

Annabelle Ewing: The Minister mentioned that there were examples of successful contracting out. Can she list them?

Rosie Winterton: I am prepared to write to the hon. Lady with other examples.
	The important thing is public accountability, on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is right to focus. We want to ensure that the public and asylum seekers have confidence in the system. We also believe that the private running of an accommodation centre—to standards set by the Home Office—can deliver what we want; it can deliver public accountability. Whichever method is adopted, we want appropriate partnerships and liaison to be established with a range of bodies such as local, health and education authorities, charities and non-governmental organisations. They all have a role to play in that ongoing process. The whole point of a trial is to identify what works best. We therefore want the flexibility to do that within the trial period.
	We cannot accept the Conservative amendment No. 3, which would place a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in clause 26 to residents of accommodation centres. That also applies to the similar Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 40, 167 and 168. If we are to have a genuine trial, we should not have a fixed concept about what might work. We have already said that we are prepared to consider a different configuration of accommodation centres in response to concerns about 750 beds. A smaller centre may affect the types of services that it is practical or necessary for the Home Office to provide. We believe that it is prudent to be prepared for all eventualities. We would not want the Bill to place an obligation on the Home Office to arrange to provide something that it would not always necessarily be sensible for us to provide. I hope that hon. Members accept that that is why we do not want to be constrained by the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 166, taken with amendments Nos. 3 and 40, would place a duty on us to provide legal advice and representation to accommodation centre residents. As hon. Members said, we had a substantial debate on that in Committee and explained why it is unnecessary to take the power to provide legal advice to accommodation centre residents. Powers already exist in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to provide legal help via the Community Legal Service. They place a requirement on the Legal Services Commission to meet local needs. Powers in clause 93 enable the Home Office to fund organisations that provide advice to asylum appellants.
	A duty to provide legal advice and representation to accommodation centre residents is a different matter. Let me re-emphasise that we are committed to providing access to free, independent, quality legal advice to residents of accommodation centres. That advice will be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission through on-site provision, local supply or a combination of the two. The precise arrangements, however, will depend on the location of each accommodation centre, but all centres will provide facilities for use by solicitors and advice agencies. It would be distinctly odd to place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide legal advice to those in accommodation centres when other immigration legislation contains no equivalent duty for the generality of asylum seekers, even those who are detained at Oakington, for example.

Keith Vaz: There is obviously a difference between a power and a duty. Is my hon. Friend saying that she is satisfied that current legislation means that appropriate legal advice will be provided at each centre?

Rosie Winterton: Yes, I am, and I hope that my comments have reassured hon. Members.
	Amendment No. 42 would delete subsection (2)(b) of clause 26, which enables us to make regulations requiring the manager of an accommodation centre to determine the amount of money to be provided to an accommodation centre resident. Hon. Members expressed their fears about that in Committee. I hope that I reassure them when I say that their fears are unfounded. If we contract out the operation of accommodation centres, there will be no question of a private sector manager making arbitrary decisions on the amount of cash paid to asylum seekers. Equally, there will be no question of a civil servant manager or a manager from the not-for-profit sector making arbitrary decisions. Clause 26(2)(b) enables a centre manager only to determine the amount of money in accordance with the regulations. The regulations will provide the safeguard because we will ensure that they do not give the centre manager the discretion to make arbitrary decisions.
	We also believe that amendment No. 43 is unnecessary. As we explained in Committee, administrative law requires the Secretary of State and the centre manager to act reasonably. That is implicit and enforceable. They will be able to impose residence conditions only in accordance with regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. On the length of time that people are required to be present in the accommodation centre in any 24-hour period, we said in Committee that we envisaged the 12 hours specified in the Opposition amendment tabled then to be at the upper end of the scale.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the atmosphere in the centres is the key. We will provide a range of activities to enable asylum seekers to spend their time in the centres productively. There will be incentives to remain on site as well as requirements to be there. If we get it right, we hope that asylum seekers will recognise that what we are asking of them and what we are offering them is in their best interests.
	We also cannot accept amendments Nos. 133, 136 and 137. The whole asylum support regime is structured to enable us to treat asylum seekers and their dependants as a group. That is what the National Asylum Support Service currently does. Again, it would be distinctly odd for us to take a different approach in accommodation centres. I understand that hon. Members might think it unfair to evict the dependants of an asylum seeker from an accommodation centre because of a breach of conditions committed by the principal applicant, or vice versa. However, that is what happens under the Asylum Support Regulations 2000.
	The consequences of a breach of conditions for the family as a whole will be made clear to asylum seekers at the outset and they will be briefed about their obligations. We do not think it unreasonable that the actions of one member of a family should have consequences for the rest of the group. That is what happens already and it would be odd if the regulations on accommodation centres were different.

Peter Luff: On that point, will the hon. Lady give an assurance that a light touch will be used? It is possible that an asylum seeker will be in a remote rural location far from the accommodation centre and physically unable to return to it because of a lack of public transport, which would be no fault of theirs. Will sympathetic discretion be used such circumstances?

Rosie Winterton: Of course discretion will be used in all such circumstances. Such decisions would not be taken lightly.
	I hope that hon. Members agree that amendment No. 131 is unnecessary. I understand entirely the concern to ensure that asylum seekers have a right of appeal against any decision to withdraw support by requiring someone to leave a centre. We agree with that. As we explained in Committee, a right of appeal already exists by virtue of clause 45, which inserts new section 103 into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It gives a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against any decision to stop providing support under clause 15 or section 95 of the 1999 Act, or both.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister for her kind response on visiting committees. That is most encouraging. I shall not seek to press my other amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Compensation for depreciation of property value

'Compensation shall be paid to owners and landlords of dwelling houses for any depreciation in the value of such property caused by the establishment under section 14 of accommodation centres, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.'.—[Tony Baldry.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tony Baldry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in clause 14, page 8, line 42, after "persons", insert—
	'in locations suitable to the cultural and other needs of those to be accommodated.'.
	No. 6, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'(3) No accommodation centre established under this section shall hold more than 200 persons.'.
	No. 1, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'(4) An accommodation centre shall only be established after the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein'.
	No. 29, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'( ) Each accommodation centre shall hold a maximum of 250 people at any one time, except where expressly agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant local authority.'.

Tony Baldry: I hope to have the support of my hon. Friends so that I can press the new clause to a Division. I also hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote on amendments Nos. 6 and 1. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would welcome that.
	I note that amendment No. 6 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who intervened on me earlier to accuse my constituents of being nimbyist. The amendment stipulates that no accommodation centre should hold more than 200 persons. I hope that when we vote on it, the hon. Gentleman will have the courage to support his decision to table it.
	On Second Reading and in Committee, Ministers made it clear on numerous occasions that accommodation centres are an experiment. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said:
	"As we have no experience of running such centres, we have no hard and fast view about different scales.
	Ahead of a trial, I have no idea about the answers. The Bill will give us the power to trial . . . The trial will allow us to find out what works, and we can proceed from that point."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 2002; c. 74–75.]
	That was a fair acknowledgement by the Minister conducting the Bill through Committee that the Government are engaged in an experiment. There is no precedent for such an experiment in this country; indeed, there is no precedent anywhere in Europe. Although there are accommodation centres for asylum seekers elsewhere in Europe, none has anything like as many as 750 people living in it at any one time, as Ministers acknowledged in Committee.

Mike Gapes: I have been listening at length to the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and they all come down to one point. He seems to think that urban areas, where services and facilities are already under pressure, and boroughs such as mine, which has more than 5,000 refugees, rather than the 750 that he is talking about, should continue to bear all the costs and pressures of the asylum system. As an MP representing an urban constituency, I think that his whole approach is one of nimbyism.

Tony Baldry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place when an earlier intervention on that point was made. If that is his reaction to my remarks, he clearly has not been listening to them. Furthermore, such interventions display considerable intolerance on the part of Labour Members. My first contribution to these proceedings lasted no longer than six minutes, but the hon. Gentleman seeks to give the impression that Conservative Members have been speaking at great length. I speak as a Member of Parliament who faces the prospect of an accommodation centre being sited in his constituency, and I believe that all my comments have been sensible and proportionate.
	If the hon. Gentleman thinks that being concerned about a liaison committee or interested in the centre's impact on the resources of the local police and health service signifies nimbyism, he is not serving his own community very well. If he and his colleagues had been reading their post, they would know that every organisation from Amnesty International to the British Red Cross is opposed to the proposals. The comments made by the general secretary of the TGWU on the "Today" programme this morning, in which he said that the proposal is fundamentally flawed, clearly fell on deaf ears.
	I am conscious that there is not much time for this debate, so I hope that I can continue without further such interventions from Labour Members, who seem to feel that any sensible, constructive opposition or comment on the Bill can simply be dismissed as nimbyism. The experiment by the Government is having an impact on my constituents. That impact is not hypothetical or possible; it is immediate. In the days following the Government's announcement that the outskirts of Bicester may be the site of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, I was visited in my surgery by constituents who had seen the sale of their home fall through.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No, there is very little time and I want to make several comments.
	These were people coming up to the exchange of contracts who now found their property unsaleable. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Because the prospective purchasers had withdrawn. That situation is not hypothetical, but real.

Peter Luff: Labour Members are demonstrating rather appalling intolerance and an ignorance of reality. As my hon. Friend knows, in my constituency, where there is a foot and mouth disease burial site 300 yd from the proposed site of an accommodation centre for asylum centres, every one of the small number of houses affected is completely unsaleable. They are all on the market and there are no takers for any of them. Some of those people desperately need to get on with their lives, and they cannot do so because of the Government. Would not it be right for the Government to buy those properties and then sell them when the market recovers?

Tony Baldry: Yes.

Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No. I want to make my speech.
	The state has decided, for whatever reason, that it wants to take action because it believes that there will be a greater good for the state as a whole, but in doing so it is having a direct impact on the lives of individuals and on the value of their property. In those circumstances, it must be right, in natural justice and in equity, for the state to compensate those individuals.
	When the M40 was built through my constituency, those affected by motorway noise were granted compensation. When, as a consequence of the change of flight paths from USAF Upper Heyford, aircraft noise increased substantially over a number of villages in my constituency, and it could be demonstrated that the value of people's properties had fallen as a consequence, the Ministry of Defence gave an ex gratia payment based on the change in the value of the property. There was a clear recognition that, in the interests of national security and of the state, it was sensible to change the flight paths, but as a consequence of that action by the state, a number of individuals suffered and it was right and proper that the state compensated them.
	That depreciation in property value was not fictional, notional or imagined; any loss had to be determined and quantified by professional chartered surveyors acting on behalf of the claimants and by surveyors acting for the MOD. However, when a loss could be shown and agreed, compensation was made. I am not going as far as that in my new clause. The Land Compensation Act 1973 does not go so far as to say that there should be total compensation for any depreciation in the value of a property; it says that if the state decides to carry out certain works, householders should be compensated for the impact of those works on their property.

Glenda Jackson: I offer what I hope will be comfort to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He is rightly concerned with their anxiety that the value of their property will plummet if 750 asylum seekers are sited nearby. May I reassure them? London and the south-east, which carries by far the largest number of asylum seekers and refugees in the country, is an area in which property prices have risen to astronomical heights, and they continue to rise. It could well be that the siting of an accommodation centre on the outskirts of Bicester will be followed by a property boom.

Tony Baldry: Such a fatuous comment will be met by my constituents with the reaction that it deserves. I extend to the hon. Lady a genuine invitation to my next constituency surgery so that she can put that point to them. I hope that she will have the courage to do so. It is easy to make cheap points in the House of Commons, but it will be different when she has to look families in the face and tell them that property prices in her constituency are going up, so the house sale for which they had been hoping for months and which has just fallen through is just tough luck. I hope that she will come to my constituency—she will be very welcome.

Glenda Jackson: I am grateful, and I shall of course accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation—if he will accept an invitation from me to visit one of my advice surgeries and meet some of my constituents who are unable to find not only somewhere to buy, but somewhere to rent in this city, because property prices continue to rise.

Tony Baldry: Of course I am happy—[Interruption.] Of course I am happy to come to the hon Lady's constituency—indeed, I visited it on several occasions when I was a Minister for housing. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind the House that we are dealing with a serious matter that should be debated in an orderly manner.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady's second point was something of a non sequitur, but as she has mentioned it, I shall ask her and the Minister a question arising from a point that was not made clear during the consultation with local authorities. About 10 per cent. of asylum seekers have valid claims; therefore, on a six-month basis, about 75 individuals or families from a centre will be found to have a claim to remain in the UK. Is it the Government's intention that the local authority in which the centre is sited will have responsibility to accommodate those people? So far, the Government have given no explanation of such matters to local authorities or local people.
	To return to my central point, if there is no loss, there cannot be compensation. Compensation is possible only if there is a demonstrable statutory loss. I see no reason why the Government should resist the amendment, which is on all fours with existing legislation and precedents relating to compensation. It would be extremely perverse if compensation were possible in relation to every other Government activity, but, simply because accommodation centres are an experiment or trial, the Government were unwilling to grant compensation to householders who suffer real, not hypothetical, loss.
	The fact that the centres are to be established as a trial or experiment is all the more reason why there should be written into the Bill a statutory system whereby people may be granted compensation. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government acknowledge that where the state intervenes for the benefit of the state but individuals lose as a consequence, it is right in natural justice and equity that those individuals are compensated.

Hilton Dawson: That was the most appalling speech that I have heard in my five years as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked whether I would go through the Lobby in support of amendment No. 6. I assure him that specially trained and built for speed and strength wild horses could not drag me through the Lobby to support the Tories against the Labour Government. Monkeys, if they sit at typewriters long enough, might eventually come up with a work—

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member has put his name to an amendment, is he not under some obligation to vote in accordance with that fact?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Hilton Dawson: I am happy to answer that point. The hon. Member for Banbury destroyed the argument by the way in which he introduced it into his speech.
	Although I have some sympathy with the proposal that accommodation centres should be as small as is feasible, and a great deal of sympathy with the notion that people should remain in them for as short a time as possible, it is vital that the House recognises the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), wherein certain communities are under enormous pressure. There is therefore a great responsibility on every Member of Parliament to acknowledge that asylum seekers and people who want to come to this country should be made welcome. They are people of skill, intelligence and resilience whom we should welcome into our communities.
	Rather than stand here and, as has already been done many times this afternoon, spout reasons why accommodation centres should not be established in various parts of the country, I say that they should be established throughout the country. I would welcome an accommodation centre in my constituency, and I think that my constituents would welcome it too.

Humfrey Malins: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 1. I judge that my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who have been in their places for the whole debate, have throughout spoken on behalf of their constituents with great realism, sense, sensitivity and humanity. I am proud to be associated with each of them, with what they have said and with their approach to the problems.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made accusations against my hon. Friends' attitudes to the size and location of accommodation centres. How wrong he is to do so. What does he say to the 10 respected organisations—international names; I will not run through them, but he knows who they are—that wrote to the Home Secretary on 3 May outlining concerns identical to those expressed by my hon. Friends? Does he say that those organisations are wrong? With all their experience, they wrote:
	"we are greatly concerned at both the locations of the eight potential sites for Accommodation Centres to house asylum seekers and the proposal that the four confirmed sites should house up to 750 people each."

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: I will give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), because I know that he has been desperate to intervene.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous and deliberately confusing the issue of organisations that have legitimate concerns, shared by many of us, about the way in which asylum seekers are treated with the attitude taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), which is basically one of total opposition to the presence of any asylum seekers anywhere near any of his constituents?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend's attitude is nothing of the sort. He has advanced good, sound arguments. If the hon. Member for Islington, North is saying that he has legitimate concerns about size and location, let us see whether he follows us into the Lobby in a few minutes' time. Despite his comments, I doubt that he will be able to do so.

Peter Luff: May I make it absolutely clear that my constituents would welcome the opportunity to share with the rest of the country the burden of asylum seekers? The problem is the manner in which the Government propose to do it. The diocese of Worcester, whose bishops are no supporters of the Conservative party, has said that it opposes the Government's proposals because the Churches cannot make their distinctive contribution to making people welcome because of the concentration of numbers. We could more effectively make smaller groups of asylum seekers welcome in Worcester.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I shall be grateful for an opportunity to divide the House on amendment No. 6, when the time comes. That amendment relates entirely to accommodation centres not holding more than 200 persons.
	I need not go through the arguments. One of the tragedies of this place—frankly, it is a disgrace—is that at ten minutes to 7 tonight there will not be a chance for us to get on to vital debates on other matters. That saddens me—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary may say that from a sedentary position, but dozens of Labour and Conservative Back Benchers want to speak on those important issues. Suffice it to say that in Committee I inferred from the words of a number of Labour Back Benchers that they had great sympathy for my proposal that no accommodation centre should hold more than 200 or 250 people. I am looking at the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

Neil Gerrard: Do not put words in my mouth.

Humfrey Malins: I remember what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and I look forward to his joining us in the Lobby shortly.

Neil Gerrard: I wish to move an amendment, in a group of amendments that we will not reach, which would make significant changes to the Bill. If we had spent less time on futile debate, we would have reached it.

Humfrey Malins: I am sorry that we will not reach those amendments because the hon. Gentleman has a seriously good reputation in the field of asylum and refugees.
	Amendment No. 1 proposes that an accommodation centre should
	"only be established after the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein".
	I shall say little else, except to repeat the words of respected non-governmental organisations, which said in their letter of 3 May that situating centres
	"away from urban areas is likely to lead to isolation and potential institutionalisation."
	They went on to say:
	"There are . . . financial and social benefits from siting smaller Accommodation Centres in urban areas rather than as proposed."
	They also said that
	"smaller Centres in urban areas . . . are likely to blend more easily into the existing environment with consequent reduced tension among the resident population".
	It is vital that the Home Secretary listens not just to experts outside the House but to the members of the Opposition who are urging him to establish small centres in suitable areas and, equally importantly, many Labour supporters who, if they had a chance, would vote with us tonight.

Richard Allan: I shall briefly introduce amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which were tabled by my hon. Friends and me and echo the concerns of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We take seriously the concerns of people outside the House, who believe that smaller accommodation centres in appropriate locations would be more fitting—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is right to say "Sheffield, Hallam" from a sedentary position; a good accommodation centre was set up during the Kosovan airlift at Folkwood school in a suburb of my constituency, allowing individuals access to the facilities of the city. The arrangement worked well, and local people felt so too.
	We are trying to be constructive. Appropriate accommodation centres can work, but we do not want the Government to go ahead with larger centres in inappropriate locations, only for Opposition Members to return to the House in two or three years' time to say "Told you so". I would rather not go through that painful experience; the centres should be sited appropriately from the outset. I hope that we will be able to have a separate vote on amendment No. 28, which refers to the appropriateness of the location. I, too, regret the fact that we have not had time to debate more groups of amendments.

Beverley Hughes: We all accept that, as Members of Parliament, we are obliged to represent the views of our constituents in the House, but it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke three times at length on the same issue—he does not want an accommodation centre in his constituency—which regrettably means that we have not reached the next group of amendments on which many Members wished to speak.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that it is not three modest contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that have cost us the later debates but the Government's insistence, day after day, on driving matters through the House without giving us a proper chance to debate them?

Beverley Hughes: I do not accept that for a moment. Opposition Members spent an hour debating the format of our proceedings and on three occasions the hon. Member for Banbury put his point of view.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I shall make progress.
	The hon. Gentleman repeated the same points over and over, at the expense not of Ministers but of other Members.
	I must tell the hon. Member for Banbury that new clause 8 is unacceptable not only because it cuts across part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and is unworkable but because it challenges some of the most fundamental principles of planning law. Part 1 requires compensation to be paid where physical factors arising from the use of public works cause depreciation in land value. Those factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and so on. I do not believe, and I do not think that anyone could possibly believe, that any of those factors will arise from the building of accommodation centres anywhere.
	Part 1 is a remedy for people who suffer nuisance from a public development but cannot pursue a claim in the courts, as promoters of a scheme have statutory immunity from prosecution. To give compensation for depreciation caused by the mere existence of a normal development would cut across the principles of planning law. We therefore do not accept the intention behind the new clause, and even if we did, we would have to rewrite part 1 to deliver it.
	On the hon. Gentleman's points about consultation and involvement, my predecessor Lord Rooker agreed to visit sites before changes in ministerial responsibility were made.

Tony Baldry: That is news to me.

Beverley Hughes: It may be news to the Opposition, but it is true. I have made arrangements through my private office to implement my noble Friend's decision, and shall go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the next two or three weeks and talk to people there and in other locations.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is very brave.

Beverley Hughes: If I can face up to the Prison Officers Association, I can certainly face up to the hon. Member for Banbury and his constituents.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 28 are a Trojan horse for the Opposition's argument that all accommodation centres should be in urban areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that we do not accept that premise. The National Asylum Support Service currently disperses asylum seekers to cluster areas. The top 10 locations—those receiving the highest numbers of asylum seekers—are Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Leeds and Wolverhampton. We are not prepared to accept the premise that places with the most experience of accepting asylum seekers should continue to be the only ones that do so. Having said that, this is a trial and if the accommodation centres work as we expect, we will be willing to explore a variety of locations; indeed, we will want to do so.
	The other amendments deal with size. We have partly covered that issue and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that we would proceed with a smaller accommodation centre. In terms of including a limit in the Bill—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 408.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Establishment of centres

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 8, line 42, after "persons", insert—
	'in locations suitable to the cultural and other needs of those to be accommodated.'.—[Simon Hughes.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 345.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'(3) No accommodation centre established under this section shall hold more than 200 persons.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Support for destitute asylum-seeker

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 9, line 6, after 'centre', insert—
	'for a maximum period of 10 weeks'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 401.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 16
	 — 
	Asylum-seeker: definition

Amendment made: No. 214, in page 9, line 30, at end insert—
	'( ) he is in the United Kingdom,'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 17
	 — 
	Destitution: definition

Amendments made: No. 252, in page 10, line 6, at end insert "both".
	No. 253, in page 10, line 10, at end insert "both".—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 21
	 — 
	Person subject to United Kingdom entrance control

Amendment made: No. 256, in page 11, line 30, leave out from "centre" to "he" in line 32 and insert—
	'by virtue of section 23 or 27'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 31
	 — 
	Education: general

Amendments made: No. 259, in page 16, line 38, after "school", insert—
	'(for which purpose a reference to the appropriate authority shall be taken as a reference to the person (or persons) responsible for the provision of education at the accommodation centre)'.
	No. 260, in page 16, line 38, after "school,", insert—
	'( ) section 329A of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (review or assessment of educational needs at request of responsible body) shall have effect as if—
	(i) an accommodation centre were a relevant school for the purposes of that section,
	(ii) a child for whom education is provided at an accommodation centre under section 26(1)(f) were a registered pupil at the centre, and
	(iii) a reference in section 329A to the responsible person in relation to an accommodation centre were a reference to any person providing education at the centre under section 26(1)(f),'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 33
	 — 
	"Prescribed": orders and regulations

Amendments made: No. 215, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—
	'( ) include consequential, transitional or incidental provision.'.
	No. 257, in page 18, line 9, leave out "and".
	No. 258, in page 18, line 10, at end insert—
	', and
	( ) section 35.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

Neil Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that we were unable to reach the amendments in my name, starting with amendment No. 83, before 7 o'clock. Although Members of this House might understand why that happened, it will be difficult for people outside this place to understand why we have failed to debate what is perhaps the issue of most interest to those looking at the Bill. Is it possible for you to try to avoid this in future, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I appreciate that you do not control the timetable motion, but when it is obvious that there are matters of interest to be debated, could you discuss the matter with the parties involved so that we can reach important amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is not a role for the Chair in this regard. These matters are decided either through the usual channels or by a motion before the House that is discussed and agreed, as happened this afternoon. While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who was not able to bring his amendments before the House, I am afraid that it was out of my hands.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim

'(1) This section applies to an appeal under section 66(1) against an immigration decision on an application which is made wholly or partly on either or both of the grounds specified in section 77(4)(a) and (b).
	(2) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies in reliance on section 77(4) if the Secretary of State certifies that the application mentioned in subsection (1) above is clearly unfounded in so far as made on the grounds specified in section 77(4)(a) or (b) (or both).
	(3) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies in reliance on section 77(4) if the Secretary of State certifies that—
	(a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of which he is not a national or citizen, and
	(b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country.
	(4) In determining whether a person in relation to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (3) may be removed from the United Kingdom, the country specified in the certificate is to be regarded as—
	(a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and
	(b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
	(5) Where a person in relation to whom a certificate is issued under this section subsequently brings an appeal under section 66(1) while outside the United Kingdom, the appeal shall be considered as if he had not been removed from the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 15—Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim: transitional provision.
	Government amendments Nos. 224 to 227.
	Amendment No. 13, in clause 80, page 44, line 19, leave out Clause 80.
	Government amendment No. 228.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 44, line 21, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 14, in page 44, line 21, leave out—
	'Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert—
	'adjudicator or an Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 44, line 26, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 15, in page 44, line 26, leave out—
	'Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
	and insert—
	'adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
	Government amendment No. 229.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 44, line 29, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 16, in page 44, line 29, leave out—
	'Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
	and insert—
	'the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
	Government amendments Nos. 230 and 231.
	Amendment No. 155, in page 44, line 32, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 170, in page 44, line 34, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 171, in page 44, line 37, leave out "should" and insert "could reasonably".
	Amendment No. 172, in page 44, line 40, leave out—
	'would have been permitted or required to raise'
	and insert "could reasonably have raised".
	Amendment No. 173, in page 44, line 43, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 156, in page 44, line 44, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 174, in page 45, line 1, leave out "or matter".
	Government amendment No. 232.
	Amendment No. 175, in page 45, line 3, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 157, in page 45, line 4, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "an adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 176, in page 45, line 5, leave out "should" and insert "could reasonably".
	Amendment No. 177, in page 45, line 5, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 178, in page 45, line 7, leave out from "section" to end of line 8.
	Amendment No. 158, in page 45, line 9, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 179, in page 45, line 10, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 159, in page 45, line 12, leave out—
	'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
	and insert "adjudicator".
	Amendment No. 180, in page 45, line 15, leave out "or matter".
	Amendment No. 181, in page 45, line 18, leave out subsection (6).
	Government amendments Nos. 233 to 236, 245, 246, 244, 247, 242 and 243.

David Blunkett: We should pause for a moment to determine what it is we are trying to achieve, not only with the changes in the Bill, but in terms of the appeals system. We are trying to ensure, first, that those who have a legitimate claim that their life, liberty and well-being are being threatened are able to make such a claim in this country and have that considered, as we said earlier this evening, speedily and fairly.
	At the moment, the volume of claims in this country by those who are subsequently not allowed to remain—because, through the adjudication and appeals system, their claim is turned down—is so substantial that it clogs up the legitimate system for dealing with first decisions and appeals, which, frankly, is grinding to a standstill.
	The amount of resource that has been allocated to the system, including support, and the prolonged nature of the way in which the appeals system works means that there is a danger that those who have a legitimate right to be here under the asylum system, as opposed to another form of migration policy, are in danger of being overlooked. We need to concentrate on the objective, which is, rightly, to provide for those who are genuinely at risk.
	There is all-party support for this. On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary put it very well, when he said that he shared the objective of ensuring
	"the rapid, effective admission of refugees fleeing dreadful persecution and the equally rapid and effective removal of those seeking to use this as opposed to other, legitimate means to enter the country, getting round rather than facing the immigration rules."
	I agree with that, as I think most people would. We need a system that works on that basis.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that there is agreement on the objective, but he referred to the prolonged nature of the appeals system. In order to deal with that prolonged nature, surely it is necessary to have a robust analysis of the reasons for it. Has that been done?

David Blunkett: Yes, it has. Many of the issues relating to the length of the procedure were outlined in the White Paper on 7 February, which is why we proposed an end-to-end review, starting with the question of induction and reporting, through to the existing dispersal of the new accommodation centres and to the removal provision, as well as a reassessment of the whole appeals process.
	On Second Reading, I said that we were not satisfied that we had yet made sufficient progress in relation to the nature of appeals. The multiple opportunities for judicial review that exist—I remember spelling them out on Second Reading—lead to layer upon layer of delay. It is a question not only of the application of the resource that should be going into an assessment of the appeals that are made by those who have escaped from death and torture; there is also a diversion of expertise because it is not simply the resource that has to be applied.
	We are doubling the number of people going through the adjudication system and we have massively increased the number of adjudicators in the last year alone. We have increased the staff of the immigration and nationality directorate by about 4,500 over the last two years and we are dealing with the largest number of new applicants currently in Europe, including Germany.
	It is not that we should not be taking, processing or granting the right to be here for those who have a legitimate claim. It is right for us to take a substantial number of those entering Europe, but we must be able to deal with claims fairly and properly. The shadow Home Secretary had a good point on Second Reading when he related this to Europewide objectives. He said:
	"It would be practical and useful to have a general agreement across Europe that when asylum applicants come from a safe country . . . they should return to the safe country from which they started their travels to have their application processed there."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 359–64.].
	On Thursday in Luxembourg, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and at the Seville Council the week after, we will promote the idea of rapid improvement and change so that we can get a grip Europewide, collaboratively rather than competitively, on what needs to be done. We need to deal with asylum shopping, which is causing real difficulty, and on which we appear to be the last stop.

Gregory Barker: Under the Home Secretary's criteria, do safe countries include all the applicant countries to the European Union?

David Blunkett: No, there is no list at present, because we need to be clear that anyone who is to be returned under the category of a clearly unfounded claim would not have been at risk in any of the countries that they passed through to get here. We are talking about two categories: clearly unfounded, when people produce no evidence of having been at risk or that the country from which they came was unsafe for them; and the category of those who—there has been considerable debate about this in this country for some time—have not made a claim in any of the countries through which they have passed, where their asylum claim would have been quite legitimate and would have been heard in the same way, although not under precisely the same rules and processes, as in this country.
	It is crucial that we are able to deal with those two categories sensibly and sensitively. We need to ensure that people whose claim is certified as clearly unfounded or those who have come through European countries where they would not have been at risk but where they failed to make a claim—so it could be presumed that they were heading for Britain for reasons other than that their life and well-being were at risk—are not returned through the undue use of Executive power. That is why it will be open to them to make an appeal against that certification under judicial review. Obviously, judicial review will establish a set of criteria in relation to the countries in Europe through which such people have passed, to determine whether those countries can be regarded as safe under the terms of the European convention on human rights and whether it is therefore appropriate to return people to them.
	If, when we get these changes into statute, certain countries have been allowed into the European Union and have been seen to be providing all the necessary safeguards, it will be ridiculous if the regulations continue to debar us from doing an automatic return to them. Because it would be wrong to have a white list, safe countries must be determined on the evidence provided and in a way that ensures that safeguards are in place.
	There is a wider issue—obviously, the Opposition will raise this, and I would have to be very silly not to pick it up, because there is a clear theme running here—concerning whether the assessment of countries is sufficiently clear or rapid. If it is not—which we do not accept—we need an advisory committee to assist us. Such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties on its make-up. It would have to help us with the process without removing the existing formulations, which draw down all the known available evidence. It is important to put that on the table immediately, because no one should get the impression that we are going to put people at risk.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary has anticipated that we strongly oppose the new clauses and will seek to divide the House on them later. I do not understand how the Labour party has completely changed its policy over the past few years. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the Home Secretary's predecessor said that removing people before they appeal undermines justice. What has changed? His own figures—validly applauded by himself—show that the rate of making decisions is getting faster, appeals are being held in record numbers and the removal rate of failed applicants has increased. If the system is improving, which we welcome, why is there suddenly a need to do things that many people in the House and elsewhere find thoroughly obnoxious and morally reprehensible?

David Blunkett: It would be obnoxious and reprehensible if we were to return people to regimes that put them at risk or if we did not give them a clear opportunity to make a claim in a legitimate European country, because they wanted to come to Britain. We have to ask why people want to come to Britain. Is it to escape death or torture or because of particular benefits to be found here; or should they be claiming through the new economic migration routes, because they want to work here? Given the number of people who fail to make a valid claim right through the appeals process, there are clearly many who want to work here and are not coming to escape death or torture. That is a simple fact.
	The electorate do not fully understand why people who have crowded through the rest of Europe have not chosen to exercise a claim there, even though their reason for being there was escape. Asylum is not a matter of whether people would rather be here. It is fair dos if people really want to be here because they have learned our language over the internet or have friends or family here. Those people should apply through the other routes, many of which we are just opening up in new ways. That is a different matter from facing death or torture.
	We need sensible ways of dealing with the matter, especially if we are to open new routes through the United Nations, so that people can claim out of country rather than clandestinely making it through the tunnel or on the ferries or coming through airports with false documentation, which is what many do. Many others make an in-country claim after having been here for a substantial time, sometimes on human rights grounds, having made no such claim at the time of arrival but having decided that it will help them stay. We all know that to be true, because we all see it all the time in our constituency surgeries.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's direct question is that unfounded claims massively clog up our ability to use the extra staff and resources that we have provided fairly and properly, thereby negating the investment that we have put in. People out there think that we are crackers, and if they think that, they will not warm to the other things that we are saying about tackling prejudice and racism. We need to build trust in the system, so that people welcome warmly those whom they know to have been facing death or persecution.
	I am trying to develop a system that does not involve a white list, but which has some common sense built in and which includes proper safeguards for those who genuinely face persecution. That is why there is the right to review and to challenge the decision taken on whether a person's life and liberty is threatened by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether certification should therefore have been made. If those points prove true and the life or well-being of the person concerned is threatened because of that, they would not of course be returned, and their appeal would be heard in this country. The same is true of all who present some founded claim the moment that they arrive, or who have some legitimate proof that they were at threat or that their country of origin had presented a threat in recent times.
	I accept that we were fairly slow on the uptake in respect of Zimbabwe, but we did not put people's lives at risk. We halted the returns and listened to what was being said, including by my own party and the Opposition parties. I mention my party because I was touched by the deep concern expressed earlier today by members of the Conservative party for my well-being within my own ranks. It was clear that I had their support in taking into account Labour party views, and that certainly made me feel much better.
	The second criterion is that we will not send someone back to a place from which they will be sent to another country, other than in accordance with the refugee convention. In other words, we will not return people in circumstances in which they will not enjoy the protection of the 1951 convention. Those safeguards are built in; we are simply trying to turn away people who have no right to be here, and to send them back even in cases where we will grant them an out-of-country appeal.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

David Blunkett: To varying degrees, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Finland have policies that allow out-of-country appeals to be heard. They are not countries that anyone would describe as illiberal, albeit that the changes are being introduced in Denmark are draconian. However, I am talking about the situation before the recent parliamentary debate and the legislation that was passed by the Danish Assembly.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that we support the introduction of resettlement programmes and other routes into the country for people who are genuine economic migrants. We welcome that initiative and have said as much publicly and privately. However, does he accept the view of British courts that out-of-country appeals are in many cases almost valueless? The reality is that many people do not appeal, and in effect the system is making it impossible for many to do so. The system appears intentionally to be driving down appeals. The Home Secretary and I seemed to agree in an earlier debate that between 40 and 50 per cent. of all claims in the past 10 years were accepted under one heading or another. It is surely wrong, therefore, for significant numbers—at least one in five—to be forced out of the country before their cases, which might eventually be accepted, can be determined here.

David Blunkett: That would be true if they were at risk in the country to which they return, but I am desperately keen to ensure that they are not so at risk. If they have a personal reason for wanting to pursue the appeal, we should facilitate their doing so. It is a lot easier to do so now than it was even five years ago, thanks to the internet and other communication methods, as well as to more traditional ways. Incidentally, it is not uncommon for paper appeals to be heard in circumstances where a person cannot attend an appeal in this country or in other European countries. Lawyers are familiar with such situations.
	A person may well not appeal in a country that operates an out-of-country appeal because they recognise that they have no ground for an appeal and that it will prove unsuccessful. So long as legal support, asylum support and accommodation is available, and so long as another appeal is available somewhere along the line, people are inclined to use it. Indeed, the fact is that many lawyers are inclined to encourage them to do so. That is why our process is so prolonged. As I have said, that distracts from those who have a legitimate right to have their appeal thoroughly aired.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I had not a disagreement but a useful exchange on Second Reading about the percentage who stay. I agreed that if we added in the cases of exceptional and indefinite leave to remain, his figures were correct, so we eventually concluded that we were both right. Indeed, I remember the exchange well. However, the trouble is that exceptional leave had to be used in cases where everyone accepted that the country in question was not safe to return to. In Afghanistan—I mention it purely as an example—a great deal of heartache and human and military resources, have been expended to re-establish safety and civilisation and to put Afghans back in charge of their country. However, what is to say that such people will still not attempt to come to this country? Some 9,600 have done so in the past year. Exceptional leave to remain was granted, even if the claim was not accepted, because we did not wish to return people.
	Of course, the point is rapidly coming where we can encourage and support people in returning to Afghanistan—with the help, I hope, of the rest of Europe. We can then ask whether it is legitimate to suggest that they remain at risk from the Taliban, given that the Taliban no longer run the country. Such simple questions must be asked and answered, so that people who are genuinely fleeing persecution can be helped. I do not want to over-egg the point, and I know that many hon. Members will want to intervene, not least to clarify certain matters. However, in terms of returning people to European countries from whence they came, proper certification, judicial review and establishing which countries can legitimately be regarded as safe constitute a reasonable set of presumptions through which to get the matter right.

Michael Weir: I understand the Secretary of State's argument, but his concentrating on countries rather than individual cases gives me cause for concern. A particular country could be safe by and large, but it might not be so for certain individuals. A current example is India. By and large, someone returning to India may be relatively safe, but that is not necessarily true if they originate from Kashmir, for example. In concentrating on the country rather than the individual, the danger is that injustice might be done.

David Blunkett: If a person can provide any evidence whatsoever that clearly shows a founded fear—within the terms that I have described, and with which we are all familiar—their claim would still be heard. They would not simply be returned. However, India is not a good example. We are discussing not countries that are threatening each other with military conflict, but people who are persecuted and threatened with death or torture by a particular state or—under the wider definition of the 1951 convention—other organised groups that put them at risk.

Fiona Mactaggart: I appreciate that a person could make an appeal from overseas that deals with the merits of the case, but I am concerned about judicial oversight of the process of certification. Many people find judicial review an expensive, alien and complicated process, to which they do not necessarily have easy access. Is there not a way to ensure some oversight of the certification process? I have a lot of confidence in the Secretary of State, but not in every possible holder of that office. I am concerned that the certification process could be misused in such a way that someone who is genuinely in fear of persecution might not have their right to asylum protected.

David Blunkett: Given the long-standing and deep interest that my hon. Friend has in those issues and her knowledge of them, I take seriously what she says. We would all wish to ensure that the initial decision—the certification—is carried out by professionals trained for the job, and that the possibility of review is readily available. I envisage that on issues relating to the nature of the risk in a particular country, we will wish to facilitate a rapid testing of the initial decision. We will also wish to be able to test the situation further, following any changes in that country. We are keen to establish a pattern that will be checked by the judiciary on certification to provide us with a base on which to make common-sense decisions. People will then know that the system is fair and credible.
	The same is true of returning people to other European countries. In the end, a sensible bilateral agreement with those countries, as part of a longer-term revision of the Dublin agreement, must be the way forward. I will take every step possible, after next Sunday's concluding election in France, to do that. The interim Interior Minister has shown a willingness to achieve that aim and our position will be strengthened by the vote tonight. The interim Minister accepts entirely the rule of law and has written to me to indicate that he accepts the spirit of the new clauses and the way we are proceeding. Some tough negotiations will be necessary, but to have the ability to return people to France—we have been able to return almost 6,000 people who came for other purposes but did not claim asylum—makes sense.
	We return almost 6,000 people a year, as I have said before—including during the question and answer session on the White Paper—but we do not return those who mention the words "asylum claim" when they hit our turf, even though they might have just come from France or Belgium and did not claim asylum there. We are trying to get the position right in the way that the Danes and the Germans have managed to get it right. Other countries are also keen to achieve that. The problem needs to be seen in the context of bilateral and multilateral agreements across Europe, with us taking a lead rationally and sensibly, instead of clamping down unacceptably as Denmark has, which has led to great disquiet and social uncohesion—if there is such a word.

Lynne Jones: Will one of the proposals that my right hon. Friend puts to the new French Government be an agreement that UK immigration officers should visit places such as Sangatte and interview those people who are attempting to reach this country as asylum seekers, so that their claims can be assessed there?

David Blunkett: As part of bilateral and multilateral Europewide agreements, I would not rule out the use of our immigration officers and support staff working on other national territories, but I do not wish to be tempted into discussing what might be agreed for Sangatte, because that might start some hares running that I could do without. I have not even started negotiating on Sangatte, despite the Catholic weekly magazine and the interview with the interim Social Affairs Minister that led the Leader of the Opposition to write an intemperate article in the Daily Mail that presumed I had already given all my cards away. In fact, I am trying my best to strengthen my hand tonight with a few aces and I hope that the Opposition parties will assist me in doing so.
	In the end, we want Sangatte closed under proper procedures that do not result in people on the streets of Calais and surrounding areas. We do not want people trying to get here in, on or under trains, or by other routes across the channel. We want people to come here fairly, under Europewide agreements that allow us to assess and return them if that is the sensible approach. That is what I will suggest on Thursday in Luxembourg, and in that spirit I ask the House to support the new clauses and the associated amendments.

Oliver Letwin: I welcome what has been a slow but steady acclimatisation on the part of the Home Secretary to the merits of the argument that we began making about eight months ago—that the resuscitation of the bilateral agreement and, as far as possible, multilateral agreements that work is key to resolving the chaos of the asylum system. He has even moved a little further today than in the past few weeks, and that is very welcome. We want to strengthen his hand, and he is right to say that some parts of new clauses 14 and 15—the meat before us tonight—will have that effect, or at least seek to achieve it.
	New clause 14(3) and (4) have that intention and are welcome. New clause 15(2), (4) and (5) also seek to achieve that effect. If I have understood the articulation of those subsections correctly, they relate precisely to the case in which a person comes to the UK having most immediately been in a country other than their country of origin. In the example of France, the provisions would allow the Home Secretary, if he is equipped with the appropriate bilateral or multilateral agreement, to remove the person back to that safe country without the possibility of appeal. That is clearly an appropriate legislative underpinning for the resuscitation of the 24-hour rule that obtained in the bilateral agreement while it was in force, and we support it as a necessary consequence of our long-term argument in favour of the resumption of such an agreement. On that point, we are not one iota apart from the Home Secretary.
	As I mentioned when we debated the initial question of the recommittal of the new clause to Committee, the problem that we face is that the Home Secretary has ingeniously allied the subsections that I just mentioned to other subsections—new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3). Those subsections are about something different. They have the intention that the Home Secretary—which in this case means a rather junior official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary—should be able to make the judgment that a particular application is "unfounded". It is extraordinarily difficult to know how the official in question will make the decision that a claim is unfounded. By its very character, the decision is difficult to make.
	In his remarks on this group, the Home Secretary mentioned frequently the example of a case in which the person presents no evidence at all. In such a case, I accept that it is relatively easy to decide that a claim is unfounded. When people who wander in and claim asylum are asked for evidence that they are subject to persecution and are unable to say anything at all, in any language, that might suggest that they have ever been or would ever be subject to persecution, I am bound by logic to accept that their claims would be, in any ordinary sense, unfounded.
	However, the number of such claims is, of course, minimal. Most of the people whom we are discussing in connection with the subsections will have said something in defence of their claims. They may not have said very much, or been very articulate, and they may have spoken about countries that, on the whole, are not very dangerous. Yet they undoubtedly will have said something, and the subsections to which I referred will call on junior officials to make the judgment that their claims are utterly unfounded, when such judgments might otherwise have fallen to an adjudicator on appeal.
	The Home Secretary sought to counter what he suspected would be one limb of my argument when he spoke about the advisory committee that he wants to establish. That committee will decide whether the country in question might be dangerous.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's idea of an advisory committee, although it does not go far enough. I do not accept that the present system of country risk assessment is merely in need of oversight by an advisory committee. That oversight is welcome, but the present system of country assessment is woefully and intrinsically deficient. I do not believe it likely that any Government agency will ever be able to conduct country risk assessments with the speed and confidence necessary to allow a junior official to decide that a claim is wholly unfounded, and to do so with the conviction required to sustain judicial review, among other things.
	If the Home Secretary wants new clause 14(2) or new clause 15(1) and (3) to have any chance of sustaining themselves under judicial review, he will need to move to genuinely independent country risk assessment, at the very least. Even with that, there is a real question about whether it is proper for a junior official to decide whether a claim is unfounded, and to force the person involved back to the country from which he or she came—if, indeed, that is possible. That person would then have to conduct an appeal from that country. If the junior official makes an error, I have the gravest reservations about whether the case could be brought to a just conclusion.
	The Opposition face a great difficulty, therefore. We want to back the Home Secretary in some subsections of the new clauses. Those provisions are necessary and safe, and there is no question that returning a person to France, Denmark or any EU country, for example, is anything but a perfectly legitimate act for the British state. It runs no risk of compromising that person's life or liberty. However, by the same token, we want to resist new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3). The Home Secretary has so designed the new clauses as to ensure that we cannot achieve both desires simultaneously.
	I suspect that the matter will be pressed to a Division by Liberal Democrat Members. If so, we will vote with the Government and against the Liberal Democrats, although we will have to hold our noses over the subsections of which we disapprove. We will seek to engage the interest of our noble Friends in another place to disentangle new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3) from those other provisions with which we agree.
	I fear that that will lead, yet again, to debate and discussion taking place between Members of the two Houses. That is not, I think, one of the Home Secretary's favourite occupations, but I see no other way to make progress. I am determined that we should give the Home Secretary the support that he deserves in regard to those provisions that are right and which make it possible to imagine that bilateral agreements will come back into play. However, I intend to preserve our determination to avoid, if we can, compromising improperly the safety of individuals through those subsections that pose a threat to their safety.

Neil Gerrard: I shall make a brief contribution to the debate. I understand the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the way in which the process is sometimes dragged out deliberately by advisers and lawyers who know from the start that victory in a case is unlikely. Those of us who deal with asylum cases will be familiar with those instances in which atrocious advice is deliberately given with no other aim than to drag the process out. We all see such cases, and I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about them.
	A proposal similar to the one in the new clause was contained in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I remember the debates on that legislation, in which we discussed proposals from the then Home Secretary that would have allowed people with manifestly unfounded cases to be sent back to the countries from which they had arrived. The proposals then allowed those people to mount appeals from those countries.
	In the 1996 debates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the shadow Home Secretary. His view as to whether the proposed course of action was right was rather different then. Some of the concerns raised about the proposals in the 1996 Act are being raised again about the provisions in the new clauses.
	We can tell people removed to a third country that they have a right of appeal from that country, but we cannot guarantee that that person will be allowed to stay in that third country until an appeal is heard. It is quite possible that they will be sent on somewhere else, or back to where they came from. We have no control over such people once they have been removed from the UK.
	Experience with other appeals, such as family visit appeals, that are held on paper as opposed to being held in person, shows that adjudicators trying to judge the credibility of a person's story are more likely to respond positively when they can hear that person speak. That can be of critical importance when adjudicators come to decide whether an appeal should be allowed.
	I should like some clarification because, from my reading of the new clause, it seems to deal only with removals to a safe third country as it refers to a country of which a person
	"is not a national or citizen".

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive the clarification that he seeks. I did not read the new clause that way, as he will have noticed. So far as I can see, subsection (2) applies specifically to the opposite case: to someone who is not being returned to a country of which that person is not a national—not another safe country—but to the country of which that person is or may be a national—an unsafe country, potentially.

Neil Gerrard: That is an important point, and I want to be clear about it. Subsection (3) is quite clear, but some of the briefings and reports sent to us by outside organisations suggest that someone could be summarily removed back to their country of origin. I would be seriously concerned if that were the impact of subsection (2).
	Much of the debate so far has focused on sending people back to France, Germany or Denmark, where they might have been able to claim asylum but did not, as opposed to sending them back directly to their country of origin. That is an important issue, and I would like the meaning of subsection (2) to be made absolutely clear. Does it mean that people can be summarily returned to their country of origin? If that is a possibility, it puts a very different perspective on the new clause.
	We have already referred to who will make the decisions on certification and how those might be challenged. If decisions on certification are to be made by a caseworker at a port of entry, perhaps very quickly, and even though, on paper, a judicial review might be possible, it might be difficult for someone to take that route if they have been unable to obtain easy access to legal advice, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
	Oakington has been described as a place that would be used for cases that appeared to be unfounded. A pattern seems to be emerging that the people sent to Oakington are from certain countries of origin. One wonders whether that is the criterion, rather than what the individual said when arriving at the port of entry. We will get close, if we are not careful, to a white list in another form if countries of origin become one of the main deciding factors in whether a case is manifestly unfounded.
	One of my greatest concerns is that this could be a critical decision affecting the individual, particularly if it involves summary return to the country of origin. It is essential, therefore, to get the initial decision right. Comments made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rang some bells. It is easy to talk as if there are only two classes of asylum claimants—those who will be given asylum because their cases are evidently well founded, and those, at the other extreme, whose cases do not have a shred of credibility. The reality, however, is that among the many thousands of people who claim asylum each year is a whole spectrum of cases, from one extreme to the other. We are trying to draw lines in that spectrum. Inevitably, with regard to which cases are certified and which are not, people will be bunched around that line. There will be very fine divisions between claims being certified or not. It concerns me that very small differences between individuals might lead them to be dealt with in significantly different ways in respect of whether they have a right of appeal.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend is making some useful points about the principles of out-of-country appeals. Does he share my concerns about the practicalities of a person who is removed from the country without having completed or begun an appeal here doing so from another country? What are the resource implications? What support would there be? Would it be through a British overseas post, which, as we know from dealing with ordinary matters are already under pressure, or would it be down to the individual to write, presumably in English, to the authorities in this country? Has my hon. Friend given some thought to the practicalities, never mind the principles, of the issue?

Neil Gerrard: That is an important point. Nothing in the Bill gives us an answer to that question. Let us assume that a person could act in various ways—they could pursue their appeal by writing, using the internet or visiting a British post overseas. That, of course, gives rise to other practical questions. How does that person obtain representation at their appeal? It would probably not be much good for them to try to use a lawyer in another country who was not familiar with British law, but how would they make contact with a lawyer in this country? How would they brief the lawyer, and where would they find the resources to conduct an appeal?
	Such situations are different from other appeals conducted from overseas. For example, in family visitor appeals there will inevitably be sponsors in the UK who can help with some of the problems of finding representation in this country.

Oliver Letwin: Is there not another and more fundamental difference? If a person is sent back to the country of origin—if that is indeed the purport of subsection (2) of new clause 14—will it not immediately be evident either that the decision that the claim was unfounded was true and that the person has no basis for appeal because they are happily situated back in their own country, or, unhappily for economic reasons only; or that the claim was not unfounded and the person is in the most dire straits? In that case, how on earth can they conduct an appeal if they are being chopped up by some appalling regime to which they have been sent back by mistake? I cannot see—can the hon. Gentleman?—how an in-country appeal can resolve any problem that might arise under subsection (2).

Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman is right. If a mistake is made, it is difficult to see how the consequences can be other than extremely serious for the person returned on the basis of an unfounded claim.

David Blunkett: We must not misunderstand each other. My hon. Friend has been putting his case extremely carefully and credibly, but we must not misunderstand what the shadow Home Secretary has just said. I spelled out the unacceptable risks, on which we are all agreed, and we are not intent on sending people back to countries that would chop someone up, in the words of the hon. Gentleman—or anything like it. We know of no country that has it in for one person alone, as regards taking away their rights and exposing them to the danger of death or torture as individuals, as opposed to the groups to which they belong, the religion they hold, the politics they espouse or any of the other things that I read out. I was specific about that because it is in those terms that we are talking about returning people.

Neil Gerrard: I completely accept my right hon. Friend's point, but I question whether the proposed system will deliver what he says and whether there might not be a risk of serious problems for some individuals whose claim has been certified as unfounded.

Fiona Mactaggart: It may help my hon. Friend if I give an example of a case where such risks might occur in a country that is usually safe for most people. In parts of some countries, female genital mutilation is practised on young women and there is no adequate protection for them. That happens in countries to which we might consider returning people. I am not clear that the procedures would offer adequate protection that such practices could never happen.

Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Such issues have always given rise to difficulty—whether only part of a country is safe and whether the person being returned actually ends up in the part of the country that is supposed to be safe.
	My final point relates to new clause 15. My understanding is that it would apply to cases that were already in the system. An appeal might already be in progress under the existing system, but under the new clause the process could be stopped before the appeal was heard, the case could be certified as unfounded and the person could be removed. Retrospective legislation of any sort always concerns me. If that is the effect of new clause 15, I would be extremely worried.

Simon Hughes: I indicated earlier that my hon. Friends and I would divide the House at the end of this debate on the two Government new clauses. It might be helpful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I also indicate that we will seek to divide the House on our amendment No. 13. Of the many amendments in this group that Mr. Speaker has selected, it addresses one of the other issues that, in our view, goes most to the heart of what is wrong with many of these sets of proposals.
	We may debate this later in the day when some of the heat and noise has gone out of the earlier exchanges—both those that happened and those that were expected to happen but did not—on education. We regret the failure to allow the time for such debate. In my view, we shall not have the time, with an hour and 10 minutes left, to complete the business schedule for today by any means. There are four groups of amendments on appeals—this is the first, and there are three remaining. We may not get beyond this debate by 10 o'clock, and that will be the end of it.
	In this context, we are discussing the protection by law of some of the most vulnerable people who ever come to Britain to seek protection. It is unacceptable that Parliament should have to debate proposals put down on Friday afternoon, and published for the first time and available to colleagues for the first time yesterday morning, which nobody has been able to amend, even though we are meant to be able to amend new clauses and schedules on Report. It would not be acceptable even if they were relatively unimportant new clauses and new schedules. It is fundamentally unacceptable when they relate to the right of the courts to oversee the actions of the Executive and the process of appeals, and when they relate to this entirely new proposal, which, as I indicated to colleagues, the Labour party opposed five years ago—that an immigrant or asylum seeker may have to go abroad to pursue their case, but anybody else can have their case dealt with here.
	It is fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle that if one comes here seeking shelter, one should not have the same appeal rights as someone who has gone through the employment appeal tribunal on an employment matter, through the social security appeal tribunal against a decision of the Executive on social security, or through the tax appeal system, for example. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to register our dissatisfaction with the process as well as the substance.
	I shall give one example only of why what the Government are doing is fundamentally wrong. It relates to the intervention of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in terms of the kind of issue that it raises. A well known case called Islam and Shah went to the House of Lords in 1999; it got there after an application for judicial review. It went through the process in the following way. Originally, the case had been put to the adjudicator and lost by the individual applicant. She was refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. She applied for and obtained judicial review of the tribunal's refusal. The Home Office then appealed to the Court of Appeal and won. She then appealed to the House of Lords and won. It was not on an insignificant issue but on a hugely important issue relating to the rights of women in Pakistan. In many ways, that country might be regarded as one where proper process, in many years, might be acceptable, but the House of Lords was very clear that its decision was merited by a hugely important matter.
	Let me set out what the Lords decided as regards whether someone could seek asylum on the basis of being a refugee as a result of belonging to a particular social group, which in some parts of the world could be women, people of a particular age, or people of a particular sexuality. For example, homosexuality is unacceptable in Nigeria and the safety of a homosexual who wants to return there might be at risk in some parts of the country.
	The House of Lords said:
	"a 'particular social group' consisted of a group of persons who share a common, immutable characteristic that either was beyond the power of an individual to change or was so fundamental to the individual's identity or conscience that it ought not to be required to be changed. The existence of such a group did not, however, depend on an element of cohesiveness or co-operation or interdependence amongst the members of the group. Thus, as gender was an immutable characteristic that was beyond the power of the individual to change and as discrimination against women was prevalent in Pakistan in violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, women in Pakistan constituted a 'particular social group', within the terms of Art 1A(2) of the 1951"
	convention on refugees.
	The ruling continued:
	"Accordingly, as the appellants were members of a particular social group in Pakistan and as the Pakistani authorities were unable or unwilling to protect them against gender-related persecution, it would be contrary to the UK's obligations under the 1951 Convention for"
	that person
	"to be required to leave the UK and"
	her
	"appeal would have to be reconsidered by the Tribunal."
	That woman came to this country and a couple of years ago the highest court in the land decided to uphold her case. However, it was upheld only because she had the right to have an Executive decision heard by our independent judiciary.
	It is important not only to separate the powers of the Executive and the judiciary, but to understand that we often win the argument only because we have had the debate, like we did today. The hon. Member for Slough and others know that from their work before they came here. We do not stand a chance of winning a case if the only alternative is to have the papers looked at by someone in authority, with no chance of anyone putting the argument, which is what the Government propose.
	Many of the greatest decisions in favour of liberty have been taken by courts in this land, the United States and elsewhere only because there has been debate and a court has been persuaded. The Government, to their shame, are suggesting that a group of people—not you or me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but people who have been subjected to the most awful circumstances before they arrive here—are deprived of that right. That must be wrong.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman's points are serious and important. I endorse what he says about the appalling lack of time available to scrutinise all the amendments properly. However, for the sake of clarity, is he saying that under the terms of the group criteria, the British Government should offer asylum to the entire female population of Pakistan? I may be wrong, but is that the essence of his argument?

Simon Hughes: The trouble with the debate is that we have such limited time in which to discuss the issues, and the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely what we should be considering. I have with me a sheaf of papers from Amnesty International, which knows what it is talking about, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre. They all say, first, that we have not had time to consider people's concerns properly, and, secondly, that the proposal is profoundly wrong.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is no—the only asylum issues that are dealt with here concern those who get here to put their case. That is one of the flaws of the system, and it is one reason why the Secretary of State rightly says that we must try to have a saner system that does not require people illegally to board a channel tunnel train and put themselves and others at risk. However, if a Pakistani woman were here and there was evidence that she came from a part of Pakistan where she would be at risk, she would be entitled to asylum. The refugee convention, drafted by British lawyers after the war, was introduced specifically to ensure, among other things, that people in need could put their case when they found somewhere safe away from their own country.
	The great bulk of refugees do not come to Britain. It is not as if all the world's refugees were coming here. That is another fallacy perpetuated by tabloid newspapers. Most refugees are in places such as Pakistan and the central African states. Europe has a very small proportion of the world's refugees, and of that proportion we have a very small number. There may have been between 70,000 and 80,000 applicants, but they constitute a relatively small proportion of those coming to Europe. The numbers go up and down, and although at the moment the United Kingdom and Germany have the highest numbers, that has not always been the case.
	Crucially, between 40 and 50 per cent. of those who have come here in the past 10 years have had their claim upheld. It is not as if all those people were putting dud cases. Of course there are economic migrants who try to claim asylum—I know them and I have dealt with them, as we all have. However, between 40 and 50 per cent. are not like that.
	I want to give the House a few more figures, which are not an invention but come from a written answer given by Ministers. On 19 April, at column 1259W, Ministers gave figures for the outcome of asylum appeals at judicial review for the last two years for which figures are available. In 2000, 365 judicial review applications were allowed out of a total of 755 made. By my calculation, that means that almost half of them succeeded. In 2001, 260 applications were allowed out of 390 made, which is well over half. The total for the two years is 625 applications allowed out of 1,145. Those are not my figures; they were given by the Government in a parliamentary answer. They show how important judicial review is.
	There are many proposals in this group of new clauses and amendments, and I shall state briefly—I hope that it will take no longer than 10 minutes—why I hope that colleagues from all parties will support us. I understand and respect the difficulty experienced by Conservative Front Benchers, but I hope that Conservative Back Benchers and Labour friends and colleagues will support us in saying that the Bill is not acceptable.
	I understand the pressure on Governments to try to have a co-ordinated European policy, and I welcome that effort. However, that does not mean that we have to misrepresent the position and take measures that are unnecessary and positively harmful. I quote to the Home Secretary a letter of 15 May 2002 from the then Minister of State, Lord Rooker, which sets out how the Government are succeeding on asylum:
	"The rate of making decisions is faster; appeals are being heard in record numbers . . . and the rate of removal of failed applicants has increased."
	Last month, then, the Government were saying, "We are doing better."
	We know that on the very day the letter, headed "asylum constituency casework", was sent to colleagues, the Prime Minister was meeting Ministers to discuss what action was required to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications. One idea put to that ministerial group by civil servants was that it might be worth considering taking Department for International Development aid away from poor countries where large numbers of asylum seekers originate. I do not pretend that the Government adopted that suggestion, but it is the sort of idea that is being put to Ministers as part of the process.
	Some of us, including the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, served on the Standing Committee on the Bill. During the Committee stage, the Government said that they would table some amendments—and they did. However, more announcements were made on 30 May, after the Committee had finished. It was announced that, in addition to the tightening up, the appeal on the papers alone and the removal of judicial review—all of which were introduced by the Government to their own Bill only after Second Reading—asylum appeals would have to be made outside the United Kingdom.
	Let me explain why such a system is unacceptable, even if one or two other countries use it. First, all the evidence is that a person in France—to take the easiest case—will not have the same access to lawyers and advisers who can help in the British appeals system as a person here would have. In reality, such people's ability to lodge and argue an appeal does not work in the same way as it would if they were here. It is paradoxical that people who try to enter this country as immigrants and are turned down in, say, Tanzania or Lagos have their appeal heard here, but people who are here will now have to have their appeal heard here when they are somewhere else. That is simply illogical.
	Worse than that, it is suggested that such people can go to one of two places. They can return to the country from which they came. Let us be realistic. The person from Kosovo who came to my constituency advice surgery three years ago, before there was peace in the Balkans, was hardly going to go back to Kosovo. A person who came here more recently from Afghanistan is hardly going to go back there. The fact that we are holding meetings with the Government of Afghanistan does not reassure people that the country is now entirely safe. I hope and pray that it will be safe, and it may well become so, but it will not become safe in a week, or a month, or even three months—life is not like that. The fears that drove people to leave will not suddenly be alleviated.
	The Government offer those people an alternative, which is to go back to the last safe country they were in. I understand the logic of that, but it is actually a form of pass the parcel—passing the responsibility. It says that such people are not our business—pass them to France. I went to Sangatte and talked to the people in the camp, and I honestly believe that many of them did not know how they got there. They came across Europe in a lorry, not knowing whether they crossed over the Romanian frontier, the Polish frontier, or the German frontier first. They do not know their point of entry into the EU—they did not go through passport control. What was the first safe country? What do the French do—send them to Germany? What do the Germans do—send them to Austria?
	That is a nonsensical system, it is nonsensical that we are playing into that system, and it is an unacceptable system for us to adopt. The proposals are not merely dangerous to the interests of the applicant; they are bad policy if what we want is a coherent system for dealing with asylum and immigration.

Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he does not normally make helpful interventions. He has made one unhelpful intervention today and I am certainly not going to give him the chance to make another.
	The second argument that the Government might advance is that we need to pass the Bill as an emergency measure. We heard that argument last autumn and winter in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and we accepted that there was an emergency. However, the Bill before us now is not an emergency measure. There is no justification for not carrying out proper scrutiny or for making bad decisions.
	I hope that hon. Members have had a chance to read the representations from bodies such as Amnesty International which make it clear that the Bill embodies unacceptable decisions and proposals. I shall quote only Amnesty International, which says:
	"The provisions set out in Part 5 of the . . . Bill represent a profound attack on the right of appeal of asylum seekers. Amnesty International believes that, given the well-documented flaws in our asylum determination procedures, adequate appeal rights are an essential safeguard against erroneous decisions. Home Office statistics indicate a steady increase in the proportion of successful appeals, with the most recent figures showing a success rate of nearly one in four."
	If, under criminal law, one in four innocent British people were convicted, there would be an outcry, yet the Government are willing to put before Parliament a provision that will reduce the percentage of appellants who put their case fairly and succeed. That is not right and cannot be justified on the grounds of an emergency; there is no reason for treating the Bill in the same way as the anti-terrorism legislation that we passed last year.
	It is now Government policy that the Government decide which claims are unfounded. That is unacceptable; it cannot be right that the Executive, who make the first decision, then decide whether or not there is a case further up the appeal ladder. The whole idea is that somebody else reviews the initial decision, not the Secretary of State. May I tell the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who has just assumed responsibility for this, that the initial decision is often overturned—something which might have been considered unfounded has been shown not to be so? I therefore agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
	The difference between the proposals and the old white list, which the Labour Government, to their credit, abolished, is not clear. Under that system, someone would be treated as safe or unsafe depending on which country they came from. There has been no confirmation that clearly unfounded claims will not be similarly categorised now. It is not as if the matter has not been considered before, as it has been discussed by parliamentary Committees, particularly in the other place, which have said that the proposal to change the law is bad news. The House of Lords European Union Committee, after taking evidence, produced a report on minimum standards in asylum procedures. It said:
	"Whether so-called fast-track or accelerated procedures are in practice efficient has been questioned. The evidence we received, especially that from the appellate authorities, suggested that they were not. Witnesses pointed out the adverse effects, in terms of diverting resources, delaying other proceedings and placing burdens on the judicial process. We can see no benefit in the retention of such procedures and we have doubts whether an accelerated procedure has a place in the Directive. All cases, including manifestly unfounded ones, should be dealt with on their merits speedily within an efficient 'regular' procedure. That would also apply to manifestly well-founded cases.
	The general principle stated in Article 33(1) that appeals shall have suspensive effect is one of the major procedural safeguards established by the Directive."
	I repeat for the benefit of colleagues that one of the best protections for appellants is protection against getting thrown out of the country before their appeal is heard. May I tell Ministers that if, by any chance, the provision gets through the House of Lords, and the courts when it is tested there—I hope that, if it succeeds here, it will fail in the Lords; but if it does not, I hope that it fails in the courts—the Government will have to deal with the consequences? Instead of people being able to go for judicial review, they will come to Members of Parliament. Calls will regularly be made to the Home Office duty officers who, if they do not decide to detain someone before they get on the plane, will call on Ministers to intervene; injunctions will be served on the Government; and people will be taken off planes because they are about to be sent back to unsafe countries.
	That is undesirable for the Government, given the image of Britain as a supposed safe haven. However, they may have decided that it is all about playing and looking tough; they may want to sound tough before the Seville and Luxembourg summits so that other European countries can follow us. The Government tried such an approach on terrorism. They derogated from the European convention on human rights and said that that was justified and that all other European countries would follow them. Nobody has followed. No other European Union country has done the same thing or decided that the events of 11 September justify such derogation. The Government should not believe that adopting macho postures to the detriment of many vulnerable individuals is an appropriate response.
	I apologise not only for taking relatively more time than I did earlier, but for being absolutely unable to do justice in such a short contribution to the significant number of points that have been made by those who know what they are talking about in relation to immigration and asylum and who have made the strongest representations about why judicial review is not a hindrance but a help, about why Governments should not seek to reduce such review, and about an approach whose basis is not argument about the facts, but a consideration of whether a reasonable decision was taken by the Executive authority. Those people have made the case for why it is important that people should be allowed to put their case clearly.
	As far as I have been able to gather, all those who have been consulted have concluded that the people who work in the system as practitioners believe that a reduction of rights is not what is needed. They do not want an approach in which cases are decided only on the basis of the papers involved and in which people's rights to judicial review are taken away. They do not want the Lord Chancellor to be given power to take away rights, or provisions such as those before us which add to the right to penalise those who represent the applicant by awarding costs against them. There is no equivalent right to penalise the Home Office, which is often the cause of delay. The treatment is absolutely unequal. People tell me that as many delays are caused by the Home Office as by applicants' representatives; and such delays frequently arise.
	People also believe that they cannot trust adjudicators any more. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave the example of an accommodation centre for Somali citizens with an adjudicator who is well versed in affairs in Somalia. Such a person would be perfectly able to tell whether good cases were being made or whether somebody was trying to play along with the court and delay matters unnecessarily. We are talking about the Government not trusting the independent authorities to make independent decisions with which they are comfortable.
	The provisions are not an acceptable series of interventions. If the people making the representations believe there is a need for more resources, more adjudicators, more people in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or more civil servants working in the system, let us remedy that failing. If Home Office bureaucracy is the failing, let us deal with it, but let us not visit the sins of the Home Office and our systems in recent years on the sons and daughters of people who come to this country because we have a reputation for being a defender of human rights.
	The reasons why people come here may vary and depend on where they come from, but those people should expect the same service and upholding of rights as the rest of us. It is a theological and a civic moral premise that the way in which we deal with the least of our brethren—those with least resources and ability to look after themselves—is the way in which we should be judged and expect to be dealt with ourselves.
	The new clauses are profoundly wrong, as are existing parts of the Bill. I hope that they will receive significant opposition in the Lobby.

David Cameron: I want briefly to speak to new clauses 14 and 15. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), although he tends to speak expansively on these subjects, so that, like many liberals down the ages, I feel that I am being pushed towards the guillotine.
	I agree fundamentally with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said about our desire to unpack the new clauses, although I respect what the Home Secretary said about the oversight committee considering the assessment of countries. That will help, although we wish that it went further. I want to make two points and ask a question. Before I do so, I want to say how depressing it is to see such fundamental proposals coming before us with so little time for consideration.
	I did not serve on the Committee, so I come fresh to many parts of the Bill. There are just 12, or perhaps 24, hours to consider fundamental provisions that appear to take whole classes of people out of the ability to appeal and to represent huge attempts to limit the relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation. That is difficult to get to grips with. I have been relying on what the Minister for Social Exclusion said on "Question Time" on television to understand some of the beliefs that lie behind the provisions. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is a great expert in this area, finds it hard to understand, what hope is there for the rest of us?
	On the first of my two points, the new clauses are not much use without bilateral agreements, especially with France. Will the Minister say more about the timetable for securing that bilateral agreement? It is no good being able to send people back to the safe country from which they came—in many cases, France—if that agreement is not in place. What plans do the Government have for bilateral agreements with other countries that asylum seekers are using as a jumping-off point?
	Secondly, the new clauses seem, in the most negative way, to invite judicial review. Subsection (3) of new clause 14 states:
	"A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies . . . if the Secretary of State certifies that—. . .
	(b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country."
	That is almost begging the courts to take a different view from that of the Home Secretary. That is likely to lead to many judicial reviews. How much of the Bill will survive? How much time has been put into thinking about it in the Home Office? We certainly have little time to consider it now.
	My question is aimed at clarifying the drafting of subsection (5) of new clause 14 and subsection (6) of new clause 15, which deal with out-of-country appeals. They say that the appeal
	"shall be considered as if he"—
	that is, the asylum seeker—
	"had not been removed from the United Kingdom".
	Is there any intention behind using exactly those words? Someone who has come from France—say, from Sangatte—was in a safe country and should have applied for asylum in that safe country. If they should not have been here in the first place to apply for asylum, why should they have an out-of-country appeal? Do the words that I quoted mean that the person can claim legal aid and other rights?
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey explained the Shah case with his usual great power and vigour. The weakness of his argument is that saying that in every circumstance the right route for asylum applications is appeal, further appeal and judicial review—a highly judicial process—means that we need to work out what element of asylum applications should be an administrative process and what element should be a judicial process. There may be a strong case for saying that women who come from Pakistan or certain other countries should be seen as asylum seekers because of the way in which women are treated in those countries, but the Government should make a proposal about that, which we can debate in the House. This is where the decision about the framework should be made—it should not always be made, as it is currently, through very long judicial proceedings. That is one of the reasons why the system is getting so clogged up and our constituents think that we are incapable of dealing with the problem.

Simon Hughes: I accept the general proposition that many of us support the European Union's work towards a common basis of definition. As yet, France, Germany and the UK do not have the same definition of who qualifies for asylum. If we could reach that level, some of the difficulties would not exist and it would be much easier for the first decisions to be the right ones, so there would be far fewer appeals.

David Cameron: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but if we believe that the issue should be determined fundamentally in a judicial context, the courts can take a different view, despite a common agreement.
	I have already taken five minutes but I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the mysteriously worded subsection (5) of new clause 14.

Angela Watkinson: I want to speak briefly about the refugee convention, which new clause 14(4)(b) mentions. The provision relates to a person being removed from the United Kingdom to a place that is specified as safe,
	"from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention."
	Can we be confident that the convention is adequate to deal with the issue? I am not familiar with all its provisions. How binding is it? Is it the only agreement with other countries or have other arrangements been made under which we would be likely to send people to other countries to have their appeals heard? Is not independent country assessment required to enable us to produce a safe list on which we could all rely and thus know that people would not be sent on to a country that was unsafe for them?

Humfrey Malins: I want to speak briefly about the amendments that we have tabled in the group. I share the sadness of many hon. Members that, yet again, we shall not debate more than a small proportion of what we should discuss.
	I want to speak about amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159. I assure those who believe that that is a mouthful that they are short and almost identical. They relate to clause 80, which was clause 74, and is entitled "Earlier right of appeal". It troubled many members of the Committee that considered the Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I am pleased that they are in their places. It also troubled the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and one or two Labour Back-Bench Members. I recall contributions from the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).
	The amendments would substitute "an adjudicator" for
	"the Secretary of State or an immigration officer"
	throughout clause 80. Why did the clause trouble us? For the first time, an essentially legal process could take place without the involvement of the judiciary. The provision relates to appeals under clause 66(1). Clause 66 is a general provision that determines what an immigration decision means. It defines several immigration decisions and refers to "an adjudicator". In simple terms, clause 80 provides:
	"An appeal . . . against an immigration decision . . . may not be brought . . . if the Secretary of State or an immigration officer certifies"
	that it cannot be brought. Let us analyse what that means in practice.
	The words are plain. The clause means that a junior caseworker can make a decision and certify that an appeal cannot be made against it. Such a decision could be wholly contrary to the interests of the applicant. How can it be the end of the story when a junior caseworker makes a decision, then a certification? The appellant would never see a judicial person.
	There is a point of principle involved here: the taking of powers out of the hands of the judges and putting them into the hands of the state is something to be avoided whenever possible. Quite a number of respected non-governmental organisations thought that clause 80 was unfair and wrong in principle. The debate that we had on, I think, 21 May illustrated just that. One or more of the NGOs have pointed out that the clause made the Secretary of State judge and jury in his own cause.
	I asked the Minister during that debate whether it could really be right that a junior caseworker could make a decision and then say, "I certify that this decision cannot be appealed against to any judicial person." I asked why an amendment could not be tabled allowing the same certification to be made by an adjudicator rather than the caseworker. The response that I received from the Minister was that if such an amendment were allowed, it would take up more of the adjudicator's time. That is exactly what it would do, but what is wrong with that? Adjudicators are meant to spend time deciding tricky legal issues, and more and more are being appointed. It is not on for the Minister simply to respond by saying that this would be administratively inconvenient.
	Let us look again at exactly what clause 80 is telling us. It says that a junior official, who is not qualified, can make a decision and then certify that that decision cannot be appealed against on the grounds there set out. That is what the clause says. That is the end of the story, so far as any judicial involvement is concerned. Is there anybody in the House of Commons who thinks that that approach is fair?
	Who are these junior caseworkers who will make the certifications? The clause also mentions the Secretary of State, and I would be happy if he made them personally, but the task will be delegated. He will never know about them; nor will other Ministers. Dozens of certifications will be made by people who are not judges. Do they have to be qualified lawyers? No, they do not. Do they have to have had considerable training? No, they do not. What training have they had? Does anybody know? Does anybody in the Chamber tonight know exactly what legal or other training a junior caseworker has had? If so, will they intervene on me, and tell me whether they are entirely happy that those junior caseworkers are fully qualified to make a decision that could almost be a matter of life and death, so far as the applicant is concerned?

Iain Coleman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he has made a compelling case for opposing the clauses before us this evening. Bearing in mind all that he has said, and the strong case that he has made, will he tell the House why he and his hon. Friends will be voting with the Government this evening?

Humfrey Malins: The short answer to that is that, quite often in life, we look to the other place to make progress on our behalf. We often find clauses in a Bill, or clauses that are given to us rather later, with which we agree in part, but with which, in principle, we might have some problems, no problems or a lot of problems. Those matters are not as simple as that, and the truth is that, on appeals, the Government are dealing with certain issues on which we offer some support and sympathy for their approach while on others we remain unhappy.
	The hon. Gentleman will share my unhappiness with the fact that the new clauses and some matters that we are discussing tonight landed on our desks yesterday afternoon. That is no way to do business. He is a man who approaches those topics with some knowledge and expertise, but here I am, trying to tell the Government in 10 minutes or so that I do not feel happy that vital decisions under clause 80 that will affect the welfare of someone who has a right of appeal may be taken by someone who simply is not qualified to make the decision. That troubles me immensely.
	I return to a point that was reinforced by much of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said. Were we to keep our eye on the ball, we would consider whether existing procedures in this country work well and efficiently. It is no good legislating year after year—there have been four Bills in the past nine years. What use is legislation when the basic workings out there in our immigration and asylum system are not functioning properly? I could talk for 10 hours or 10 weeks and it would not make a ha'p'orth of difference to what happens outside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is being very kind to me. On that note, I ought to quit while the going is good, but I must say to the House that fundamental administrative points in our system need looking at.
	We need to watch out. It is unfortunate that a clause will allow a junior caseworker to make a decision and to certify it, saying, "You can't appeal against it, chum." How much better it would be if the powers to be given to the junior caseworker were given to an adjudicator. That would enable the principle that it is wrong to take powers from the judges and give them to the state to remain intact. I hope that, even now, the Government will take what I say seriously and consider taking steps, perhaps in the other place rather than under my amendment, to reassure not just me and my hon. Friends, but Members across the House of Commons who felt such concern about the provision when it was debated what seems like 10 years ago, but was, I think, only about 10 days ago.

Beverley Hughes: I shall try to respond to the points that hon. Members have made, but clearly we shall have further debates on new clauses 14 and 15. We have listened carefully to the comments and, I acknowledge, the genuine concerns that Members have raised tonight about parts of those provisions. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) began by claiming that it is difficult to judge whether a case is clearly unfounded and that the decision should not be taken by a junior official. I am concerned that that term has become common parlance among Opposition Members. In fact, those who make the decisions are experienced and concerned people. They want to make the right decision on the basis of the best available evidence. It does them a disservice to dismiss them as junior officials or junior caseworkers.

Oliver Letwin: I want to emphasise that I accept absolutely that the people making the decisions, like other civil servants in the UK, are trying to do the best job they can and, no doubt, they acquire in the course of their work a certain amount of expertise and understanding. That is not being challenged. However, they do not carry the same weight as a judge, which is why we have a system of adjudication.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked for clarification, and other hon. Members rehearsed the same question. In relation to clearly unfounded cases—mentioned in subsection (2) of new clause 14—return would be to a person's own country, or country of origin. In third-country cases, removal, by definition, would be not to that person's own country but to a third country.
	I emphasise—we ought to keep this at the forefront of our minds—that the certification that would be allowed under the clauses would be discretionary and that certification would not be made in relation to any country regarded as unsafe.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—

Simon Hughes: rose—

Beverley Hughes: I was about to deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but I shall take an intervention now.

Simon Hughes: I know that the Minister has been in her job for only a week, but have she and the Home Secretary decided how the definition of safe country will be arrived at? We used to have a white list. What will be the difference between the new way of defining a safe country and the old way?

Beverley Hughes: My right hon. Friend made it clear that we will not have a list, but we are sympathetic to the points that are being made about the documentation, which is valid—many other countries draw on our process of assessment. We must ensure that the documentation used to assess the situation in countries is perceived as being robust and as independent as possible.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned social groups and women. As the Home Secretary said, social group is one of the factors that will be taken into account. Female genital mutilation was also mentioned; obviously such cases would not be regarded as being clearly unfounded. There is no argument about that.
	I regret the linkage that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made between this Bill—in terms of process and also in terms of substance—and anti-terrorism legislation. There is no link whatever in our minds.
	Notwithstanding the concerns to which I have listened, some of the issues that the clause is designed to deal with arise from the kind of cases that, if we are honest, we all deal with in our advice surgeries. We know from the stories that people bring to us, and from the accounts of their circumstances and where they come from, that their claims are unfounded. That raises the legitimate question as to whether, in those circumstances, that person should continue to be maintained here while appealing. It is a question not of denying the right of appeal, but of whether the person should remain here while the appeal goes through. The Home Secretary and I are not into macho posturing. We think that the new clauses raise important issues. There might be disagreement about the solutions proposed in them, but the issues need to be discussed.

David Winnick: We know the background, with people with claims of little or no merit appealing time and again, but is my hon. Friend aware that some of us, including Opposition spokesmen, remain uneasy? I would be happier if there were a double check. Perhaps the matter will be raised in another place. We should not have only one official—junior or otherwise, but it certainly will not be a very senior official—deciding that the case is unfounded. The decision should certainly go to another official, higher up the chain. My unease may be totally unjustified, but I had better express my view now.

Beverley Hughes: As the debate unfolds, various measures and solutions may be proposed that will provide some reassurance on the concerns that have been expressed, while still allowing us to make progress.
	I do not recognise the figures on judicial review given by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I would be interested to know where he got them. My information is that, in the year up to March 2002, 3,200 cases were dealt with and 441 applications were granted, which is an average of 14 per cent. Perhaps that can be clarified in another place.

Simon Hughes: Whatever arguments we may have, they should not be about the figures, which I took from a parliamentary answer on 19 April 2002, at column 1260W. They are ministerial figures given only six weeks ago to Members of Parliament.

Beverley Hughes: I need to be clear about the time scale to which the figures relate and whether we are talking about the same thing. Judicial review outcomes are clearly significant for this debate, and we need to get the figures absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) asked about new clause 14(5). Legal aid will be available if the appeal is from a third country, subject to the usual merit and eligibility tests. It is a drafting measure to ensure that the adjudicator considers whether the appellant is a refugee.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the bilateral agreement timetable. The Home Secretary said today that, as the French elections conclude, we should try to make progress on the matter. Towards the end of May, Mr. Sarkozy made a statement warmly welcoming the approach that we are taking and expressing a desire to work with us to establish a bilateral agreement. We can be optimistic about making progress on a reasonable time scale.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred to independent country assessment. We are sympathetic to the need to strengthen the perception that assessment is robust and rigorous, and as independent as possible.
	Many of the provisions in the new clauses do not break new ground, either here in the UK or in Europe. The idea of having fast-track systems for manifestly or clearly unfounded claims is not uncommon in Europe, and indeed several countries do not have automatically suspensive appeals for such claims. That is the case in Denmark, Germany, France and Finland, for example. Obviously, an unfounded claim is not defined in legislation; none the less, case law exists and our courts are familiar with cases that fall into that category. I am not presenting those arguments to hon. Members as a validation of the principle of non-suspensive appeals; I am simply saying that the argument that the principle is far removed from reality is not itself valid.

Annabelle Ewing: The Minister says that, putting to one side the debate about the validity of the provisions in principle, they are not far removed from existing legislative precedent. If so, why were they tabled at the eleventh hour?

Beverley Hughes: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, we had to relate the provisions to our own legal system and obtain the legal advice necessary to ensure that what we tabled could withstand the robustness of our law.

Gregory Barker: In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about the availability of legal aid for appellants in foreign countries, have the Government assessed the additional legal cost of making such appeals from abroad? Given that foreign law firms will be used, an additional cost will presumably be incurred.

Beverley Hughes: We will deal with such issues as we progress through the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke softly and persuasively on clause 80. Although an extensive debate took place in Committee—I have read it—I am afraid that he still does not fully appreciate the current position or the proposal. As we said in Committee, clause 80 simply builds on existing legislation. Perhaps he does not realise that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduced the one-stop procedure for appeals—a measure that enjoyed support on both sides of the House. It provides for each asylum seeker to have one, and only one, substantive appeal. During such an appeal, all other grounds that an applicant may have for wishing to remain in this country must be raised. To ensure that the system could work, sections 73 and 76 of the 1999 Act introduced certification in exactly the way referred to in clause 80. Section 73 applies if an appeal is dismissed and an applicant raises grounds that they knew about, and which they could, and should, have raised earlier.
	As I said, in 1999 agreement was reached in Standing Committee that the one-stop procedure was the right way forward. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the form of certification arising from the 1999 Act has been shown to work. Since October 2000, some 700 applications have been certified—by the officials about whom he is rather disparaging—to effect removal. Only three applications for judicial review of those certifications have been made. Two were refused permission on the papers, one was refused after an oral hearing, and no substantive hearings have challenged those certifications. There can be no better evidence that the concerns expressed then and now are completely unfounded.

Humfrey Malins: When I told Ministers in Standing Committee that the procedure constituted a departure, the point was not denied. Indeed, the current scenario used not to exist. Under the terms of the clause, an appellant might never have seen an adjudicator—end of story.

Beverley Hughes: That situation might, in theory, arise, but I shall go through the process with the hon. Gentleman and show how clause 80 will build on the current provision. A person submits a claim, having been served with notice on more than one occasion that all the reasons to support the claim must be included in it. An initial decision is then made. Let us suppose that the claim is refused. That decision goes to appeal. It is only in circumstances in which an asylum seeker chooses at that point not to appeal or absconds, and then returns to try to make a fresh application, that it is possible to certify on grounds included in the 1999 Act that the person has already exhausted their access to a right of appeal.
	We do not oppose the Opposition amendments because they would take up adjudicators' time, although they would: we oppose them because they would start to unravel the one-stop appeal process and would, in effect, allow another consideration by an adjudicator of the case of someone who had already gone through the process once, and submitted a fresh application. If that case was not then certified by the Home Secretary or an official and went to an adjudicator, there would be another appeal, which would cut across the procedure that we have all agreed in principle—that there should be one, and only one, substantive appeal.
	I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for Woking can accept that we are not introducing new principles. We are building on what is already working well and what his party largely agreed when we discussed the process in proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There are no new principles included in the new clauses and, therefore, we oppose the Opposition amendments. They would start to chip away at a procedure to which we have all agreed.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 379, Noes 71.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim: transitional provision

'(1) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 69 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (asylum) or raise a question which relates to the Human Rights Convention under section 77 of that Act (one–stop appeals) if the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal or question, or a claim to which the appeal or question relates, is clearly unfounded.
	(2) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 69 of that Act, or raise a question which relates to the Human Rights Convention under section 77 of that Act, if the Secretary of State certifies that—
	(a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of which he is not a national or citizen, and
	(b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country.
	(3) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 65 of that Act (human rights) or raise a question in reliance on section 65(3) if the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal or question, or a claim to which the appeal or question relates, is clearly unfounded.
	(4) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 65 of that Act (human rights) if the Secretary of State certifies that—
	(a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of which he is not a national or citizen, and
	(b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country.
	(5) In determining whether a person in relation to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) or (4) may be removed from the United Kingdom, the country specified in the certificate is to be regarded as—
	(a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and
	(b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
	(6) Where a person in relation to whom a certificate is issued under this section subsequently brings an appeal or raises a question under section 65, 69 or 77 of that Act while outside the United Kingdom, the appeal or question shall be considered as if he had not been removed from the United Kingdom.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 359, Noes 76.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Question put, That Government amendments Nos. 219 to 226 be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 66.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 80
	 — 
	Earlier Right of Appeal

Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 44, line 19, leave out Clause 80.—[Simon Hughes.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 363.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: No. 228, in page 44, line 20, after "decision", insert "("the new decision")".
	No. 229, in page 44, line 27, leave out—
	'the person is seeking to appeal'
	and insert—
	'the new decision responds to a request or application which the person made'.
	No. 230, in page 44, line 30, leave out "has" and insert "had".
	No. 231, in page 44, line 30, leave out "seeking to appeal" and insert—
	'making the request or application'.
	No. 232, in page 45, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
	No. 233, in page 45, line 20, at end insert—
	'or since a requirement under section 98 was imposed'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 81
	 — 
	National security, &c.

Amendments made: No. 234, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
	'(2A) An appeal under section 66(1) against an immigration decision may not be brought or continued if the Secretary of State certifies that the decision is or was taken wholly or partly in reliance on information which in his opinion should not be made public—
	(a) in the interests of national security,
	(b) in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or
	(c) for another reason of a political kind.'.
	No. 235, in page 45, line 36, leave out "subsection (1)(a) and (b)" and insert—
	'subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2A)'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 82
	 — 
	Other grounds of public good

Amendment made: No. 236, in page 46, line 10, at end insert—
	'( ) Subsection (2) does not prevent the bringing of an appeal against an immigration decision of the kind referred to in section 66(2)(a) on the grounds referred to in section 68(1)(g).'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 85
	 — 
	Appeal to Tribunal

Amendment made: No. 237, in page 46, line 33, at end insert—
	'(4) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal subsections (2) and (3).'—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 94
	 — 
	Regulations, &c.

Amendment made: No. 238, in page 50, line 31, at end insert—
	'( ) An order under section 85(4)—
	(a) must be made by statutory instrument,
	(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,
	(c) may include consequential or transitional provision, and
	(d) may include savings.'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Immigration and asylum appeals: consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 245, in page 85, line 23, leave out "81(1)" and insert "81".
	No. 246, in page 85, line 26, leave out "81(1)" and insert "81".
	No. 244, in page 85, line 39, at end insert—
	'(3) A person may bring or continue an appeal under this section while he is in the United Kingdom only if he would be able to bring or continue the appeal while he was in the United Kingdom if it were an appeal under section 66(1) of that Act.'.
	No. 247, in page 86, line 33, at end insert—
	'15A Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to that Act (appeals: procedure: Convention cases) shall be amended as follows—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), omit "(4), (5)", and
	(b) omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Ordered,

Building

That the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 440) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Electoral Commission

That the Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 505) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Local Government

That the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators and Performance Standards Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 523) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(3) (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report [16th May] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

CATHERINE MEYER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Keith Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the case of Catherine Meyer, whose two sons were abducted by her former husband eight years ago, in 1994. This is a tragic case. It is impossible to imagine the pain and suffering that this mother has had to go through over the last few years. It has been described as torture. As the parent of two young children, one the same age as Lady Meyer's children when she last had custody of them, I can only dare to imagine how awful must be her grief. I know that the Minister also has young children, so he will know what I mean when I say this.
	Although this debate will focus on one case, it is one case among many—far too many. The House has debated the subject of child abduction before. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) raised the issue on 24 October 2000 when he called for a review of The Hague convention. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) also raised the issue in respect of his constituent Lawrence Horne, on 22 April 1999. The shadow Attorney-General, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), has also talked about child abduction with his usual passion. We can change the names of the children, and the facts, but we seem unable to change the results.
	Two Departments have responsibility for these matters: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department; the Home Office also has a remit. This case has also been raised at the highest levels by President Chirac in 1997, President Clinton in 2000, and President Bush in 2001. Lady Meyer's husband is, of course, Her Majesty's ambassador to Washington.
	We are also dealing with real gaps in an international convention, the complete failure of the German courts to bring justice to the situation, and the manipulation by their father of the emotions and the psychology of two young children. Dr. Hans Peter Volkmann has behaved appallingly in robbing his own children of their childhood.
	This sad story began eight years ago. Catherine Meyer, a British citizen, had a legal separation agreement from her husband, Dr. Volkmann. She had legal custody of the children from the German court by a notarised separation agreement. It was 6 July 1994, and the two boys, Alexander aged nine and Constantine aged seven, were living with their mother in London. They went on a routine access holiday to be with their father in Germany.
	On 24 August, four days before the children were due home in London, Dr. Volkmann wrote a 21-page letter telling Lady Meyer that he would not be returning the children to London and that he had applied for custody of the boys. Attempts by their mother to reach them by telephone were thwarted by Dr. Volkmann, who repeatedly said that they were not available. When she eventually spoke to Alexander, he said to her, "I'm German. I have to go to a German school."
	There then began a history of court action, which continues to this day. It makes me wonder about the principles that underpin German justice. Dr. Volkmann's application for custody of the children was rejected by a court in Verden on 24 August 1994, but in spite of that he decided to keep the children in Germany. He simply ignored the ruling. On 31 August, the High Court in London ruled the retention illegal and ordered the immediate return of the children. It also made them wards of court. A month later, the Verden court upheld the British order and ordered the immediate return of the children to the United Kingdom under the terms of The Hague convention, with help from the court bailiffs if necessary.
	The father asked for half an hour to say goodbye to the children, and Lady Meyer's lawyer agreed. Volkmann and his family went to the café where the boys were waiting and threw them into the back seat of a waiting car. The car sped away to the town of Celle, where his family had influence. He immediately lodged an ex-parte application against the Verden decision. Neither Lady Meyer nor her lawyer was informed; they were simply not represented.
	In November 1994, the appeal court in Celle reversed the two previous decisions and ruled that the children remain in Germany, as they were suffering in a foreign environment because German was not spoken at home or at school. The judges also deemed that the children, then aged seven and nine, were mature enough to have their views taken into account. By that time, Lady Meyer had not seen them in more than four months and they were under the exclusive control of their father and his family. In March 1995, the German Constitutional Court rejected her appeal.
	The Lord Chancellor's Department told Lady Meyer that there was little it could do and that she was now in the hands of the local German courts, to which she should apply for custody and access. Since 1994, Lady Meyer has tried repeatedly, and failed, to find redress in the German courts. Not only were her sons not returned to England, but she has been denied normal access to them for the entire eight years since their illegal retention in Germany.
	The boys are now 17 and 15. Since summer 1994, she has been allowed to see her sons for a grand total of 25 hours—only in Germany, usually in her ex-husband's house or on the premises of the Verden youth authority and on only three occasions without a member of the father's family or a German bureaucrat present.
	The last visit was in early 1999, and the situation has gone from bad to worse. Lady Meyer is now forbidden to see her children until 2003. Then, she will no longer be able to apply for access under German law as her sons will be over 16. The handling of her case by the German courts and the youth authority has comprised a mix of bias, incompetence and malice, but the heart of the problem has been the creation of facts by the German courts, which justify subsequent decisions favouring her ex-husband. Central to that has been delay.
	From the very beginning, the slowness of court proceedings has given her ex-husband ample opportunity to manipulate the children against her. It has taken up to a year to make a decision on access applications—not custody applications, but applications for access. Statements are extracted from the children, saying that they do not wish to see her. These are taken at face value by the German courts, which seem unable to understand that the will of the children is in fact the will of the father.
	Dr. Volkmann is therefore able arrogantly to tear up access agreements and force Lady Meyer to keep making these applications. For her, this has meant 20 fruitless trips to Germany over the last eight years, more than 30 applications and the expenditure of more than £200,000 in legal fees and travel costs.
	The more time that elapses without her seeing her children, the more the courts and the youth authority resort to the argument that it would be too traumatic for the children to visit her. The German courts refused to fine Dr. Volkmann for disobeying access arrangements. In August 2000, a psychologist made a report after extensive interviews of all parties. His conclusion was that the children were being negatively influenced against their mother and that access to the mother should be resumed immediately in the mother's home. This led to the first positive decision.
	However, Dr. Volkmann immediately appealed against the decision. A new psychologist was appointed; the mother was not even interviewed. The latest decision, scrapping all her access rights until 2003, is based on this very one-sided report.
	The situation is not unique. There are many parents who find themselves in a similar predicament. These cases closely follow an established pattern. The court registers an agreed programme of access rights; the abducting parent refuses to abide by it; the court refuses to enforce it. The victim parent is required to begin again with new hearings. With the passage of time, the court relies increasingly on the child's will and the arguments of trauma of reunion with the left-behind parent. In too many cases, the victim parent cannot continue, emotionally and financially trapped in this vicious cycle. A few find release in suicide.
	I have been alarmed at the number of children who go missing and are abducted every year. More than 100 children go missing every day in the United Kingdom. Although most are found or returned within a few hours, last year in England and Wales 1,300 children were still missing two weeks after they disappeared. Of these, 750 were from the Metropolitan police area. Some 546 had been abducted; 40 per cent. were victims of parental abduction. Reunite, whose work I want to commend, informs us that there was a 58 per cent. jump in the recorded number of children abducted from Britain between 1995 and the end of last year. The true figure could be far higher.
	The US State Department estimates that at least 1,000 children are taken from the United States each year by a non-American parent without the consent of the other parent. In a parliamentary reply, the Lord Chancellor's Department informed us that, in respect of signatories to The Hague convention, there were 1,314 cases of abduction reported and 668 of these had been returned—a 51 per cent. success rate. It came as no surprise to me that Germany had 80 cases of abduction and a success rate of only 35 per cent., one of the worst figures of any country.
	What now can be done to resolve the situation? First, I want ministerial action at the highest levels between Britain and Germany on the issue. I shall be writing to the Prime Minister today to ask him to raise this case directly with Chancellor Schroder. Germany is an EU member, a signatory to the convention and a close ally of Britain. We know that the courts are independent of Government, but they are supposed to exist in order to ensure that justice is done, not that national interests are served. There was rightly a lot of Government anger over the detaining of the British planespotters in Greece. I would like to see some ministerial anger over this. I will ask again before the summer recess what action has been taken to follow it up.
	Secondly, I want the Lord Chancellor's Department to do much more. I know that Ministers in the Department treat the issue very seriously indeed. The area of justice and home affairs is ripe for co-operation, and no issues of sovereignty are at stake. Let us have some positive judicial co-operation. I know that the German Justice Ministry has been reformed in its dealing with Hague cases, and that is thanks to the campaigning of Catherine Meyer and others.
	Surely the courts and judges in the two countries can talk to one another about the issue and produce some positive results. Perhaps we can offer some judicial training in child care law to those in the German courts who would like it. We need to learn from the administrative mistakes that have been made. It would be helpful if the Lord Chancellor's Department could ask the German authorities to review the conduct of the German courts in this case. I shall write to the German Chancellor to ask him to raise the matter directly with the German chief justice.
	Thirdly, this must be seen as a human rights issue. What advice can the Government give to Lady Meyer on pursuing the matter in the European Court of Human Rights, and what are we to do about The Hague convention? It is a pointless exercise to sign, as Germany has done, without any inclination to ensure that the articles are actually followed.
	Fourthly, I would like the Minister to agree to a meeting between the Foreign Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and Lady Meyer. Let us have some joined-up action.
	Finally, I would like the Government to support much more actively the work of non-profit-making organisations. In particular, I commend the work of PACT, the organisation founded by Catherine Meyer as a result of her terrible ordeal. She is a courageous woman who has dedicated the past eight years of her life to her beloved sons. PACT stands for Parents and Abducted Children Together, and its website is at www.pact-online.org. It exists to give information and advice to those who suffer the horror of having their children abducted and seeks to raise the profile of cases and of the subject generally in a positive and constructive way. Lady Meyer may not be able to help herself, but she intends to help others.
	Lady Meyer wrote a book entitled "Two Children Behind a Wall", chronicling her attempts to be reunited with her sons. Her love for her children is of course never-ending. She ends her book with a moving message to her young sons:
	"I have nothing left but my life to give you. This book is the only way I have left to communicate my indestructible boundless love for you. When you grow up and you are free perhaps you will read these words and understand. I do not know why life has burdened us with such a fate. I only know that even in my helplessness I will never abandon you . . . I will always be there for you but until the day when we are together again—and we will be—you must have faith. Till then sleep well, and let us meet in your dreams. In the dark at least our thoughts are our own to hold and to cherish and we can laugh again. For ever yours, Mummy."
	I urge the Minister not to abandon this mother, and the Government to do what they can to help her and thousands of others who suffer because of the cruelty and spite of people such as Hans Peter Volkmann and the administrative failures of the German court system.

Denis MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on securing this debate on the case of Lady Catherine Meyer, the mother of two children who were wrongfully retained in Germany by their father following an access visit in 1994. I congratulate him not only on the powerful case that he has made but on the way in which he has set it in the broader context of children who are abducted and disappear. Those of us who believe that family life should occupy an increasing rather than decreasing part in our society should be grateful to him.
	I want to place on the record my admiration for my hon. Friend's persistence in this as in other matters relating to the right of mothers to be with their children. As children, we all learn to speak what is called a mother tongue. In today's world, the right of mothers to be mothers to their children is usually afforded primacy in law and custom, but this case is a grave and serious exception to that general rule. No one should doubt how seriously every decent European citizen would, once familiar with the details of the case as laid before the House tonight, regard the conduct of German lawyers in seeking to deny what Germans call Mutterrecht. The right of a mother to be a mother must be considered.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important and distressing issue, and his initiating this debate is an indication of his commitment to Lady Meyer's case. As he said, there has been extensive parliamentary and public interest in it, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the action that the Government and we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have taken so far on Lady Meyer's behalf.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, Lady Meyer's children were wrongfully retained in Germany by her ex-husband, following a contact visit in 1994. Before that, Lady Meyer had full custody under the terms of the separation agreement, and her husband had access rights. The High Court in England and Wales ordered the return of the children and made them wards of court. Initially, the lower courts in Germany made an order to return the children to the UK under The Hague convention, which governs the handling of abducted children by European countries.
	In Lady Meyer's case, the initial decision of the German lower courts was overturned by the higher regional court, without her being present. Lady Meyer appealed against the decision, but lost in the German constitutional court in 1995. At that point, The Hague convention route was effectively dead. Lady Meyer therefore had no choice but to apply for contact with her children through domestic court processes in Germany. To aid those applications, the children ceased to be wards of court in the UK.
	As my hon. Friend recounted in distressing detail, Lady Meyer has pursued applications for contact since November 1994. However, she has been permitted to see her children for a total of just 24 hours throughout this period. Various contact orders have been awarded in Lady Meyer's favour, but the German courts have not enforced them. I believe that that is contrary to all European norms.
	It is important to understand how Her Majesty's Government can assist families affected by child abduction. In broad terms, responsibility for assisting such families is divided into two areas: Hague convention cases and non-Hague convention cases. The Lord Chancellor's Department is the lead Department for abductions to and from Hague convention countries in England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own central authorities. The FCO is the lead Department for non-Hague convention countries.
	The Hague convention on the international aspects of child abduction is a multilateral treaty. It seeks to return children who have been abducted abroad to their country of habitual residence, where issues of custody and contact can be resolved through the courts. It seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of international child abduction by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return.
	As I said, the FCO is the lead Department for non-Hague convention cases. Where The Hague convention is not in force between two countries, families of abducted children must pursue court proceedings in the foreign country to gain contact with, or custody of, them. The FCO provides support for parents who are pursuing contact or custody cases through the domestic courts of another country, but it also gets involved in Hague convention cases in which diplomatic intervention could expedite progress. That is why the FCO has been closely involved in Lady Meyer's case. Since January 2000, formal representations to the German authorities have been made on at least four occasions. Those have included correspondence to the German authorities from our ambassador in Berlin, our chargé d'affaires in Berlin and Baroness Scotland. Other embassy and consulate-general staff have been closely involved in negotiating a compromise between the children's father, the court in Celle, and the lawyer appointed by the Celle court to look after the children's interests.
	Although I do not have direct ministerial responsibility for Germany, I know the country and its Chancellor, and I believe that the denial of Mutterrecht—the right of a mother to be a mother—is not acceptable in a modern, tolerant, liberal Europe. I give the House my assurance that I will give my personal support to the case. It is the considered view of the Foreign Office that the German courts have been incapable of dealing fairly and objectively with the unique circumstances of Lady Meyer's case. She has been treated unsympathetically.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and appreciate greatly his support. Will he agree to convene a meeting with the Lord Chancellor's Department and Lady Meyer so that both Departments can be involved in helping her to pursue the next steps?

Denis MacShane: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office stands ready to work with Lady Meyer on the next steps of her case and looks forward to discussing that with her. I shall convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office with direct responsibility for the matter, because it would be a sensible way to take matters forward.
	Lady Meyer has clearly been active and energetic in pursuing contact rights to her sons. We will continue to provide assistance to Lady Meyer wherever possible and whenever she requests it. It is extraordinarily sad that Lady Meyer has been unable to secure substantial contact rights to see her sons. It is hard to accept that in a democratic, tolerant Europe that respects the rule of law this case has to be brought to the attention of the public authorities in such a way.
	Lady Meyer's case is, in the experience of the Lord Chancellor's Department, atypical. There are currently—thankfully—no other cases in which British parents are suffering the same level of difficulties as Catherine Meyer, though parents of other nationalities are. While there have in the past been administrative difficulties concerning Hague convention cases in Germany, Germany has overhauled the court system that deals with Hague convention cases. The German Ministry of Justice recently reduced the number of courts dealing with cases under The Hague convention from 600 to 24 on the basis that fewer judges will lead to greater expertise. Those changes are welcome and they have come about not least because of the work done bilaterally by the Lord Chancellor's Department. But they are long overdue and it is a matter of deep regret that they are too late to help Catherine Meyer and other, non-British, parents in their predicament. We hope nevertheless that they will ensure that parents in future will not suffer what Catherine has suffered.
	The answer lies in a common European system. That requires a decision, agreed by all EU member states, that the rules of unanimity mean that just one country—in this case, Germany—can exercise its veto to prevent a fair and just system from coming into operation. Those hon. Members who always insist on national rules and systems, and the right of veto uber alles, so to speak, may reflect on what happens when national egoism prevails over a greater need for justice.
	As my hon. Friend has stated, Lady Meyer has tried to use her difficult experience to help others. She has been the driving force behind the establishment of the charity Parents and Abducted Children Together—PACT. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Meyer's work with PACT and to welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who, while Foreign Secretary, gave his strong personal support to Lady Meyer's case.
	Returning to Lady Meyer's case, I am confident that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided Lady Meyer with appropriate advice and consular assistance. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland, when she was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, showed an active interest in Lady Meyer's case, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East when he was Minister for Europe. I will ensure that my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who now has responsibility for this issue, sees a transcript of tonight's important debate. I hope that the other interventions by my hon. Friend, which he mentioned earlier, will help to assist the case.
	Staff at our embassy in Berlin and our consulate-general in Hamburg have also devoted a good deal of time to assisting Lady Meyer. We will continue to do what we can to provide Lady Meyer with support and assistance, and to take a close interest in her case. It is utterly irrelevant that she is the wife of one our ambassadors. She speaks as a mother denied the right to be a mother to her children. That is a crime against motherhood, and the German legal system and those who have denied her right to be a mother should be thoroughly ashamed of it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office stands beside her, as we stand behind every mother who wants to be a parent to her sons.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.